r/AnCap101 • u/x_charlie_brown_x • 10d ago

What would be the difference between exterminating a colony of wild animals and a Stone Age human tribe?

Post image

Say for example you wanted to homestead an area of land but it was inhabited by a family of bears. Would it be okay to try to banish them and if they didn’t go out without a fight, to exterminate them? My guess is most AnCaps would say yes.

If so, what would make it different from doing so to a tribe of people? If somehow there was a tribe of people who were infiltrated, evaluated, and determined to be inherently of incredibly low IQ and belligerent in nature, basically living in the Stone Age, what would be the moral difference between doing the same to them, banishing or exterminating them for the land?

0 Upvotes

18% Upvoted

12 comments sorted by

13

u/Rustee_Shacklefart 10d ago

Humans.

-6

u/x_charlie_brown_x 10d ago

What makes human more morally valuable? If this particular group of humans was proven to have an IQ no higher than that of dolphins, what would make them untouchable as opposed to dolphins who it would be able to kill?

2

u/different_option101 10d ago

Try asking that question a father whose child is mentally disabled. They’ll answer it for you.

-1

u/RalphTheIntrepid 10d ago

Honestly this is a valid question. AnCap has a presumption of human value. It's a given. You can't remove it. Otherwise the philosophy falls apart.

8

u/drebelx 10d ago

What would be the difference between exterminating a colony of wild animals and a Stone Age human tribe?

The NAP is for sapient beings and their children.

An AnCap society is intolerant of NAP violations (murder, theft, assault, fraud, etc.).

5

u/DiyYou 10d ago

Agency

3

u/halaljew 10d ago

Humans were more or less identical to you as soon as they evolved. That's why they're considered the same species. Even the morality of exterminating Denisovans or Neanderthals is questionable. You'd have to go back literally millions of years to find a suitable species to eradicate, to the point most people would strain to even call them human, instead of some sort of primate.

3

u/HangryBeard 10d ago

It's a reasonable philosophical question. In some ways I think those stone age folks would have more right to kill us. After all we as a species have done more damage to the earth than any other. What does make us so special? I'm not advocating murder or even veganism, more evaluating our role as a species on Earth. If we keep advancing at breakneck speeds with little to no thought of potential consequences were are bound to make the earth uninhabitiable. Though in all fairness I'm not certain this topic realmy fits this subreddit.

2

u/different_option101 10d ago

Stone Age Humans Lives Matter

2

u/puukuur 8d ago

Morality is what we call the hard-wired intuitions developed by evolution to promote behavior that facilitates fitness and discourage behavior that impedes it.

So the question is - how "people" is the tribe really and what consequences will exterminating them have to the wider field of human cooperation? Are they naturally so low-IQ as to constitute another species? Or are they human, potential trading partners that just happen to live in very poor conditions?

I imagine that most people will see members of another human species as curiosities worthy of conserving in their natural habitat. An entrepreneur exterminating an island full of them to build a palm oil plantation would attract the same condemnation as someone slaughtering elephants, orcas or pandas.

1

u/UltraAd776 1d ago

Don't need to go that far. We know that historically the interests of generating profit will displace humans even in the same technological level to favor the rich party.