As I recall this was a conversation about the worth of various people in different countries, and about making the world a better place. Of course primitism vs technology isn't out of bounds. Clearly I don't hold up Yemeni society as best-practice, I just think in the bigger scheme of things there's a valid argument that developed countries can be considered to be worse.
Finally, it's a very pessimistic assumption that technology will inevitably lead to the total destruction of the environment and humanity.
Technology has already led to major environmental destruction. Not pessimistic at all, minimal assumptions required. To imagine the destruction will stop anytime soon is deluded.
I too am concerned about what we're doing to the environment, but I have to balance that pessimism against human ingenuity and our history of overcoming adversity. And if anybody is going to solve these problems, it will be the civilized world where values of tolerance of others and free speech are embraced, not those who can't even function today.
That sounded like a political speech - which is a good indication of how much truth and self-awareness I think it contains. The Yemenis are not the problem. A society with little power can only screw itself over. Your 'civilised world' is the one fucking everything up for the entire planet - but let's completely ignore that and paint the villain as the hero.
It appears we're approach this with different value functions: I'm more interested in higher quality human life (e.g. freedom, health, safety, comfort), and you are most interested in preserving the environment and other species. Fine. All of these are important, and it is a value judgement as to how to weigh the tradeoffs between the two, because it is impossible to have all of these.
The civilised world has indeed performed very well for my standards (abolishing disease, providing clean drinking water, material comfort, better human rights, etc) and poorly by yours (strip mining, oil spills, deforestation, etc). But even if we look at things from your side, Yemen (and certain cultures) won't offer solutions to solving this, so like you're saying, they're largely irrelevant at best here, but more realistically they would fuck up the environment as much as anybody if they had the scale and capabilities, so once again we shouldn't encourage their approaches and values. Some cultures and values do value preserving the environment, and I'd say we should look to them for insights.
But things besides the environment and other animals matter, so I'd challenge you to consider the plight of humans and suffering too. Which is ironic because what started this exchange was your comment that some people still care about human life (but maybe you meant that others do and you don't).
you are most interested in preserving the environment and other species.
I am interested in preserving the environment and other species for humanity's sake. It is completely nonsensical to pursue 'higher quality human life' while destroying the paradise we've thrived in - still our only home. Short-term human suffering is minor compared to the bigger picture threats to our survival that we have created.
This isn't a battle of primitivism vs technologism (it's about their culture, values, and choices), but even through that lens Yemen is a disaster. Some of the Amish, Amazonians, Native Americans, Sami, etc live very primitive lives and don't carry out the atrocities that I listed. And plenty of the Yemeni's live in cities with cars, tv, cellphones, etc, so if anything they are on the side of technology. It's totally possible today to have modern technology and still have culturally regressive beliefs. Dismissing the real suffering of people as minor and narrow really says a lot about priorities.
Finally, it's a very pessimistic assumption that technology will inevitably lead to the total destruction of the environment and humanity. The truth is nobody knows how all this will play out. I too am concerned about what we're doing to the environment, but I have to balance that pessimism against human ingenuity and our history of overcoming adversity. And if anybody is going to solve these problems, it will be the civilized world where values of tolerance of others and free speech are embraced, not those who can't even function today.