Colonial Thread

[king of nowhere]

And yet the Golden Rule, which was expressed by Christ to be the single most important idea in the entire religion, is fairly simple, objective, and impossible to twist.

 

Treat others like you would like to be treated.

 

If you wouldn't want your own children stolen away from you, don't do it.

 

If you wouldn't want aliens to come onto your land, claim it, and shoot you for being on it, don't do it to other humans.

 

If you wouldn't want to be put in shackles and worked to death in a mine, don't do it.

 

If you wouldn't want someone to shout at you for your beliefs, don't do it to other people.

 

 

Alas, that's not always true, because people are different. The main examples I can think of are in the sexual sphere, because that's one field where people have such different needs. For example, I would like for girls to make me explicit sexual proposals, because I have an extremely relaxed attitude about it and at worst I'd just say "no, thanks". It is good that I remember that people are different, because if I "did unto others what I would have done to me" I'd be in jail as a sex offender. Well, probably not jail because I'd always stop at the first "no", but certainly girls wouldn't be happy if i tried to treat them like I wanted to be treated. Or, there is one very interesting discussion I had with my cousin about possessivity towards one's partner:

Him: "You have to be a bit jealous of your partner, otherwise how does she knows that you care about her?"

Me: "How can you be jealous of your girlfriend? If you are jealous it means you don't trust her. I would not love a girl I don't trust"

"I do trust her. But I am possessive if other men try to hit on her."

"That makes no sense to me. What other men do is up to them. Your girlfriend is perfectly capable of turning them down. Being jealous means you don't think your girlfriend capable of taking care for herself; that you think she is stupid, incompetent, gullible"

"But if you are not jealous it means you don't care for her, for what she does, or that she may betray you"

"Jealousy leads to toxic relations, to try to control a partner, curtail her social life, to stalking"

"Lack of jealousy leads to open couples"

"What's wrong with open couples?"

"There! I knew you'd have said that!"

At which point we both had a good laugh.

I won't be so naive or arrogant to think I am right and he is wrong. Simply, we have different needs. But it shows how trying to treat others like you would be treated can be misleading.

 

Well, most examples I can think of that related to me personally are of sexual nature, but it applies to politics too. People think their way of life is better, and that if only other people could try it, if they were forced to it, they would also like it better. They don't realize that other people want to live in a different way; or maybe they would actually like your way of life eventually, but there is no surer way to make someone dislike something than to force it upon him. I remember reading an editorial written by a straw feminist where she said "when i see a woman wearing the burqua, I am soo angry, I would like to rip it off of her". Well, I don't like burquas either, but what do you think would actually happen if you were to actually do it? Do you think that woman would thank you for freeing her? Or do you think she would be afraid of that stranger suddenly rippping her clothes off of her? Would she be happy to suddenly show more of her in public? Or would she rather react like your conservative religious grandmother would if you forced her to wear a miniskirt?

Those people who tried to put aboriginals in schools, or to convert them to various religions, certainly assumed that if they were aboriginal they would want to be put in schools or be converted to religions; because they reasoned according to their life experience. I have no doubt the straw feminist whom I mentioned before would certainly advocate taking children away from their families if they belong to cultures she deems inferior.

 

I also suggest, at the next election, to resist the temptation to dismiss those who vote the other party as misguided dumbasses. Try to twist a bit your vision of the world, and you'll see that most of them are perfectly aware of the "terrible" things that would happen if the other party won, and they would actually like to live in that world.

 

I believe the right principle is not "treat others like you would want to be treated yourself", but "ask others how they want to be treated, and then try to do it, within reason".

[Delightful]

Is The Golden Rule a religious term?

Another question, is there one single way to be good?

[Kobold King he/him]

 

Alas, that's not always true, because people are different. The main examples I can think of are in the sexual sphere, because that's one field where people have such different needs. For example, I would like for girls to make me explicit sexual proposals, because I have an extremely relaxed attitude about it and at worst I'd just say "no, thanks". It is good that I remember that people are different, because if I "did unto others what I would have done to me" I'd be in jail as a sex offender. Well, probably not jail because I'd always stop at the first "no", but certainly girls wouldn't be happy if i tried to treat them like I wanted to be treated. Or, there is one very interesting discussion I had with my cousin about possessivity towards one's partner:

Him: "You have to be a bit jealous of your partner, otherwise how does she knows that you care about her?"

Me: "How can you be jealous of your girlfriend? If you are jealous it means you don't trust her. I would not love a girl I don't trust"

"I do trust her. But I am possessive if other men try to hit on her."

"That makes no sense to me. What other men do is up to them. Your girlfriend is perfectly capable of turning them down. Being jealous means you don't think your girlfriend capable of taking care for herself; that you think she is stupid, incompetent, gullible"

"But if you are not jealous it means you don't care for her, for what she does, or that she may betray you"

"Jealousy leads to toxic relations, to try to control a partner, curtail her social life, to stalking"

"Lack of jealousy leads to open couples"

"What's wrong with open couples?"

"There! I knew you'd have said that!"

At which point we both had a good laugh.

I won't be so naive or arrogant to think I am right and he is wrong. Simply, we have different needs. But it shows how trying to treat others like you would be treated can be misleading.

 

Well, most examples I can think of that related to me personally are of sexual nature, but it applies to politics too. People think their way of life is better, and that if only other people could try it, if they were forced to it, they would also like it better. They don't realize that other people want to live in a different way; or maybe they would actually like your way of life eventually, but there is no surer way to make someone dislike something than to force it upon him. I remember reading an editorial written by a straw feminist where she said "when i see a woman wearing the burqua, I am soo angry, I would like to rip it off of her". Well, I don't like burquas either, but what do you think would actually happen if you were to actually do it? Do you think that woman would thank you for freeing her? Or do you think she would be afraid of that stranger suddenly rippping her clothes off of her? Would she be happy to suddenly show more of her in public? Or would she rather react like your conservative religious grandmother would if you forced her to wear a miniskirt?

Those people who tried to put aboriginals in schools, or to convert them to various religions, certainly assumed that if they were aboriginal they would want to be put in schools or be converted to religions; because they reasoned according to their life experience. I have no doubt the straw feminist whom I mentioned before would certainly advocate taking children away from their families if they belong to cultures she deems inferior.

 

I also suggest, at the next election, to resist the temptation to dismiss those who vote the other party as misguided dumbasses. Try to twist a bit your vision of the world, and you'll see that most of them are perfectly aware of the "terrible" things that would happen if the other party won, and they would actually like to live in that world.

 

I believe the right principle is not "treat others like you would want to be treated yourself", but "ask others how they want to be treated, and then try to do it, within reason".

 

 

Well, yeah. I'd like for someone to walk up on the street and give me his candy bar. That doesn't make it right if I take it from him. The Golden Rule does not and has never stated that you have the right to anything you want solely because it'd make you happy to have it.

 

The point of the Golden Rule is for you to put other people's desires on an equal level to your own, not to elevate your own. Treating other people like you'd like to be treated doesn't mean tyrannize over them. It means that you afford them the same respect and freedom that you want!

 

It's a very simple system, which is why it's so powerful. There is literally no way to abuse it without utterly twisting its meaning.

[Orlion Blight he/him]

I challenge your reasoning on the grounds that there is no one who actually wants to die.

Then why suicide? Why have things such as a living will that stipulates the conditions where you will want to be allowed to die? Why this massive movement for "The right to die" that fights for people to seek doctor assisted suicide to go out on their terms?

To say no-one actually wants to die is to ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary.

[Kobold King he/him]

Then why suicide? Why have things such as a living will that stipulates the conditions where you will want to be allowed to die? Why this massive movement for "The right to die" that fights for people to seek doctor assisted suicide to go out on their terms?

To say no-one actually wants to die is to ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary.

 

 

No offense, but I feel you kind of skipped past the entire point of my post.

 

People who commit suicide are seeking escape from misery. In other words, they're trying to find happiness, or at least relief in the only way they know how.

 

If a sick old man requests euthanasia, do you really think death is ideal to him? Or do you think that given the choice he'd rather be young and healthy again? If a young woman commits suicide, do you think that she'd really, truly reject a clear life of happiness in favor of the cold embrace of death?

 

The fact that life is cruel enough to trick people into dying does not mean that life and happiness aren't what people ultimately desire.

 

 

EDIT: My apologies for rudeness. It was not my intent to offend or otherwise upset anyone.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Kobold King

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

Then why suicide? Why have things such as a living will that stipulates the conditions where you will want to be allowed to die? Why this massive movement for "The right to die" that fights for people to seek doctor assisted suicide to go out on their terms?

To say no-one actually wants to die is to ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary.

People who jump from a burning building don't do it because they want to die. They do it because they're caught between two awful outcomes, and falling to your death is better in the moment than burning alive.

The same is true of many suicidal people. They don't want death. It just seems better than what they're dealing with.

[king of nowhere]

Well, yeah. I'd like for someone to walk up on the street and give me his candy bar. That doesn't make it right if I take it from him. The Golden Rule does not and has never stated that you have the right to anything you want solely because it'd make you happy to have it.

 

The point of the Golden Rule is for you to put other people's desires on an equal level to your own, not to elevate your own. Treating other people like you'd like to be treated doesn't mean tyrannize over them. It means that you afford them the same respect and freedom that you want!

 

It's a very simple system, which is why it's so powerful. There is literally no way to abuse it without utterly twisting its meaning.

well, yes, we are saying more or less the same thing. Then I believe the golden rule stated as "treat others like you want to be treated" can be misleading in its formulation, because it can be misinterpreted as "force other people to live the way you would". It's simply a matter of different wording. I'm sure there are at least a dozen different ways to state that concept. Not that it really matters, because there will always be people who just don't care what others feel, or who believe they know better and should force their point of view on others. It's not like trying different phrasings for the golden rules willl change that.

 

EDIT: re: the suicide argument. Yes, suicidal people would rather live, but they consider suicide the best of the allternatives they have available. On the other side of the spectrum, even people who make heroic sacrifices don't want to die, but they see that giving their lives will achieve something they think worthy. I'm sure they'd much rather prefer that somoething worthy was achieved without requiring theirs, or anybody else's, sacrifice.

But this is an imperfect world, and we have to deal with the choices we've been given. Sometimes death is the best among those. So, do not confuse "not wanting to die" from a metaphorical, ideaized point of view, with "wanting to die" as an alternative to some other poor choices.

 

Also, there are the glory seekers, those who actually want to die in a highly visible manner to make a name for himself. They are most common in fiction as glory seekers, but I'm sure there must be some of those in real life too. They probably can be grouped under the "die to achieve something worthy" category; I suppose they'd rather live if they could get the same level of recognition without dieing.

Edited December 1, 2015 by king of nowhere

[Orlion Blight he/him]

No offense, but I feel you kind of skipped past the entire point of my post.

Well, it is a long post and I am suppose to be working...And reading stuff on a phone can be difficult

People who commit suicide are seeking escape from misery. In other words, they're trying to find happiness, or at least relief in the only way they know how.

I do not think you can equate wholesale "escape from misery" with "trying to find happiness". And it simplifies suicide (granted, it could be argued that I did that first, but shrug). People oft times are just trying to find an "end"...not relief, which is temporary, but a final end. To pain, depression, or one's absurd meaningless existence. But let's move on to the next point.

"If a sick old man requests euthanasia, do you really think death is ideal to him? Or do you think that given the choice he'd rather be young and healthy again? If a young woman commits suicide, do you think that she'd really, truly reject a clear life of happiness in favor of the cold embrace of death?"

Life is dynamic. At one point, a person may decide that it isn't worth living. For any reason, really. And, even if medical technology evolved to a point where we could prolong indefinitely the natural course of decayed health, I imagine people would still opt out of life. After all, there are people who specifically do not desire to live forever, who believe eternal existence is undesirable (see "The Last Answer" by Isaac Asimov for example)

"The fact that life is cruel enough to trick people into dying does not mean that life and happiness aren't what people ultimately desire."

Contentment is part of what I strive for. Happiness is overrated and only necessary to offset sorrow. As far as life? It will end and that is that. It does not need to trick us, for willingly or not; poor or rich; young and old; we all will dance to the rhythm of the Danse Macabre.

EDIT: My apologies for rudeness. It was not my intent to offend or otherwise upset anyone.

Without knowing what my triggers are, it is very hard to upset or offend. I usually just take it as an invitation to be as forward as I wish Edited December 1, 2015 by Ookla the Inscrutable

[The Honor Spren she/her]

I challenge your reasoning on the grounds that there is no one who actually wants to die.

 

Have you ever raised sheep? I have. I had a small but wonderful flock up in Illinois. They frolicked in the fields, grazing to their hearts' content and enjoying the company of their fellow sheep.

 

Then winter would arrive at the doorstep. It would get cold. One of the sheep would catch the chill in her lungs and fall ill. We'd have to stick the ewe in a stall and try to keep her warm, fighting a twofold battle: keeping her body from dying, and keeping her mind from wanting to die.

 

Not everyone realizes that a sheep can lose the will to live. When they're apart from the rest of the flock, scared, sick, and alone, the urge to survive isn't as strong as in a normal sheep. You can see it in their eyes. A hollowness. The zeal for life retreating from the poor animal's soul.

 

But here's the thing about the zeal for life--you can't lose it unless you already have it, and every living thing is born with it. When that sheep was dying in her stall, she didn't actually desire death. What she desired most of all, whether she understood it or not, was to be frolicking with her flock on a warm summer day again. She was happy then, and she wouldn't be this miserable if she didn't at some level want to return to that state.

 

Have you ever been to an industrial chicken farm? Not a lot of people realize that a chicken can lose the will to live. The chickens, cramped in their cages away from the sunlight, have often not felt the natural joy of foraging and roaming the outdoors in all their lives. Their eyes are dead. They give a terrible, cacophonous squawk that you'd never hear a natural-raised chicken emit. Sometimes they just drop dead for no reason, like the spark of life within them was abruptly snuffed out by their terrible conditions.

 

But again, even the chickens didn't truly want to die. Truth be told, they didn't know what they wanted. They couldn't know that they longed for sunlight because they'd never seen the sun. They couldn't know they wanted to eat fresh earthworms instead of their dry crumble because they'd never seen earth. What they'd needed to be happy had been separated from them, and they elected not to live rather than live without it.

 

My point is that you can't challenge the consistency of the Golden Rule with people who want to die because no such person exists. Even the most morbidly depressed suicidal person in the world is only wasting away because he's been cut off from the happiness he truly needs. Death is not something that a single living thing wants. It's only preferable to some alternatives.

 

The Golden Rule understands this. It operates on the assumption that all things desire happiness, and we should work to grant this happiness to as many living things as possible. You cannot use the skewed perspectives of broken, tragic spirits to challenge this idea. Because when you bring them up, you're not talking about people the Golden Rule doesn't apply to.

 

You're talking about the people who need the Golden Rule applied to them the most.

This thread is very interesting to read through.

And that was some beautiful writing, Kobold. 

Edited December 1, 2015 by Ookla the Articulate

[Delightful]

Re the suicide argument: where do you guys fit in Jihadists who are proud to/raise their children to be suicide bombers? They glory in death, not in life. They want to be killed for Allah, they want to kill others for Allah. Golden rule. But they're NOT good.

Relevant and necessary disclaimer: I don't think all Muslims are Jihadists or evil. I'm just referring to the percentage that are.

[Kobold King he/him]

Re the suicide argument: where do you guys fit in Jihadists who are proud to/raise their children to be suicide bombers? They glory in death, not in life. They want to be killed for Allah, they want to kill others for Allah. Golden rule. But they're NOT good.

Relevant and necessary disclaimer: I don't think all Muslims are Jihadists or evil. I'm just referring to the percentage that are.

 

 

Again, what Jihadists do is not the Golden Rule by any feasible stretch of the imagination. The Golden Rule is about respecting other people's right to choose life or death with the same freedom you desire. The Golden Rule does not give license to kill others just because you yourself don't mind dying for your cause.

 

(Side note: they all believe they're getting a hundred or so virgins in heaven. They're using death as a means to an end, not as a goal in and of itself.)

Edited December 1, 2015 by Kobold King

[Delightful]

So how exactly do you define the golden rule?

Also, that's an interesting point. Are the virgins the goal or the reward for completing the goal?

And from what I know, death *is* a goal in itself. For a 'higher' goal maybe (ie killing people), but still an aim on its own.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Ookla the Fierce

[Kobold King he/him]

So how exactly do you define the golden rule?

Also, that's an interesting point. Are the virgins the goal or the reward for completing the goal?

And from what I know, death *is* a goal in itself. For a 'higher' goal maybe (ie killing people), but still an aim on its own.

 

 

Pretty much exactly what it says on the tin. Treat other people with the utmost love and respect possible. For all but the very most broken and shattered of humans, who still themselves ultimately desire some form of happiness or contentment, this equates to treating them like you'd like to be treated yourself.

 

 

Death itself is only the goal if you are seeking total oblivion; if you wish to cease existing. I don't believe anyone wants this, but that some people wish for this as they find it preferable to the pain or monotony of existence. If your desire is to wind up in heaven, then your end goal is eternal happiness. Death (and in the case of Jihadists, murdering others) is merely a means to an end.

[Delightful]

Ah. "Treat other with the utmost respect and love" is, literally speaking, very different from "do to others what you want done to you". I like that definition better.

The Hebrew is love your neighbour/acquaintance/person as you love yourself. Which also means that first of all you have to love yourself. I get the impression that a jihadist doesn't feel love - not that they're incapable, but they're so full of negative emotions that there's just no room. I guess that also covers people who want to commit suicide - they, if I can so broadly say so, don't love their lives enough to believe it'll get better and keep living it. Though people with depression often go out of their way to be super nice and outwardly cheerful for the sake of others so.....I don't know.

Edit: NOT comparing Jihadists with those suffering from mental illnesses in any form whatsoever.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Ookla the Fierce

[Orlion Blight he/him]

Re the suicide argument: where do you guys fit in Jihadists who are proud to/raise their children to be suicide bombers? They glory in death, not in life. They want to be killed for Allah, they want to kill others for Allah. Golden rule. But they're NOT good.

Relevant and necessary disclaimer: I don't think all Muslims are Jihadists or evil. I'm just referring to the percentage that are.

Strictly speaking, what Kobold said as written is correct. But I also think the jihadists could be following the Golden Rule, just not for the reason Kobold set forth.

Consider: I might say that I would hope someone would stop me, even if it meant killing me, should I ever lose my rational faculties and start trying to harm someone. As a result, I would be justified in killing someone hopped up on bath salts who was trying to eat someone's face.

Now, the jihadist might believe and hope that if he were ever to become a heathen, he would want to be saved from such a position, even if it meant death, and would be able to justify violent actions as necessary using the Golden Rule.

I say they could, but I doubt this reasoning even enters their mind (reducing the previous to a mere criticism of the Golden Rule, not an actual bonafide example of it). People in these cases usually think in terms of "The greater good". This could be the greater good of Sharia law, the greater good of God, the greater good of Western Civilization, the greater good of establishing a future Utopia or Zion, the greater good of the needs of the many...etc.

Of course, if faced with the Golden Rule or it's variations/improvements, these people may in fact believe that, since they would be willing to sacrifice all for the "greater good", they would not in fact be violating the Golden Rule by in fact sacrificing everything.

Edit to add: If we go with Delightful's love/respect version of the Golden Rule, that is considerably less problematic than "do unto others as you would have done unto you".

Edited December 1, 2015 by Ookla the Inscrutable

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

So how exactly do you define the golden rule?

.

Here's how I define it.

Not every person wants to be treated exactly the same. Too often, "do unto others" is interpreted as "Treat everyone as if they're a carbon copy of yourself. If you like it, they'll like it." This mindset leads to extroverts seeing an introvert reading during their lunch hour, assuming they must be starved for conversation, and making small talk at them until they give up and hide in the bathroom. At its worst, it leads to white settlers deciding Natives would be happier if they were "civilized" and forcing them to adopt Western ways of living. This is a perversion of the Golden Rule.

So what is the Golden Rule? Regardless of the smaller personal things, and the cultural nuances casual strangers can't know, all people want to be treated with kindness and dignity. If a stranger doesn't know about their culture, they'd be delighted if that stranger asked questions in a polite and humble way. They want their religion respected and not pitied, and if they don't believe in anything, they don't want pity from the faithful.

I suppose the best definition of the Golden Rule is, If someone knew nothing about you or your culture, how would you want them to approach it? Do the same to others.

[Delightful]

Strictly speaking, what Kobold said as written is correct. But I also think the jihadists could be following the Golden Rule, just not for the reason Kobold set forth.

Consider: I might say that I would hope someone would stop me, even if it meant killing me, should I ever lose my rational faculties and start trying to harm someone. As a result, I would be justified in killing someone hopped up on bath salts who was trying to eat someone's face.

Now, the jihadist might believe and hope that if he were ever to become a heathen, he would want to be saved from such a position, even if it meant death, and would be able to justify violent actions as necessary using the Golden Rule.

I believe that sharia law calls for the killing of apostates, therefore if said Jihadist does believe, he would expect to be killed if he (or she) becomes an infidel.

[Mistrunner]

On colonization:

A clarification on why the colonists originally came over to America: I think someone asked why (sort of) a while back, so I want to clarify. It was because of religious persecution back in England and disapproval of the Anglican Church's reforms.

Aaaand for my opinion:

Yes, European expansion was bad for a lot of people. However, without it we wouldn't have a lot of the things we have today. If everyone stayed where they were, for one, I wouldn't be here, because my ancestors are from so many different places and many of them met in America, which wouldn't have existed without colonization. We wouldn't have airplanes- no Wright brothers; no computers or televisions, not a lot of things. You can argue they'd have come about eventually, but even if they did it would've taken much longer. And think of what would've happened population-wise, what with England being the size of Florida. It would be quite overpopulated, and the dire predictions of early environmentalists would've come true, with population outpacing food growth. I'm overthinking this a bit, I see. But in any case, European expansion, British (what I focused in here) and otherwise, paved the way for modern civilization as we know it. Was it good to do all the terrible things they did? No. But arguing that they should've stayed where they came from is, in my opinion, as ridiculous as saying the immigrants in America should all go back to where they came from.

Just my two cents on the subject. If I offended anyone, please let me know; I didn't mean to, and I'm sorry.

Now, how's about some cybercake? This long discussion must be making others hungry too.

[Guest]

I can't say why, but as I pondered what if anything I could add to this conversation, I kept coming back to TwiLyght's statement about how one party just wants to make things better, but others keep opposing their efforts. I get that she was referring to the Republican party's opposition to the Democratic party's agenda here in the United States. However, there's something about the "they just want to make things better" line of reasoning that seems to connect with what I imagine the rationale behind the empires to be (and that of their colonists).

 

More specifically, why did the European colonists do what they did in America? The usual boilerplate answer that academia pushes is that the Europeans came to America to extract resources (indulging in their base desires to rape & pillage along the way). That is undoubtedly part of the answer; it is likely an accurate explanation for the motivations of some of the colonists and perhaps even the aristocrats sending the colonists across the Atlantic. However, I think that most people think of themselves as basically good, they likely saw their actions in a much different light.

 

I think that most the European colonists believed themselves to be enlightened pilgrims bringing the glories of civilization to the savages. That motivation also explains the religious colonists who viewed their mission in the New World as a holy calling to evangelize all the natives and convert them to Christianity. In other words, both the secular and religious colonists "just want[ed] to make things better" for everyone including the natives. However, those natives "[kept] blocking their efforts" to civilize them because the natives liked things the way that they were just fine. It seems to me that better appears to be a relative term depending on your perspective. With some notable exceptions, both imperial conquest and genocide seem to require some sort of justification outside of the desire for selfish gain.

 

On the side note, many pilgrims were part of religious minorities who suffered from various level of persecution back in England. They were offered to move to the New World in order to start their own community following their own religion. Hence, England got rid of what it perceived as troublesome people (perhaps not troublesome, but those who didn't follow the main religion) and at the same time gain pilgrims to cultivate the new land.

 

The king of France did the opposite with his colonies: he stubbornly refused to send in any pilgrims who weren't Catholic, instead choosing to empty his prisons and send in the 3rd or 4th son of aristocrats in need of lands. Hence, the population of New France never grew very strong.

 

For instance, the Huguenot (French Protestants) population massively immigrated to England and later to America, but not New France. Their French name turned English and they eventually joined other Protestant groups.

 

So I'd say not all pilgrims came with a desire to convert the "savages": many simply seek a land of freedom where they would be allowed to follow their religion without having to pay the Anglican church to leave them alone or, in the case the Huguenot, simply being killed or deported. 

[king of nowhere]

Yes, European expansion was bad for a lot of people. However, without it we wouldn't have a lot of the things we have today.

Yes, I believe that if native populations elsewhere simply came in contact with western technologies, they probably would have ended up adopting western lifestyle over time. most of it, anyway. they'd still have kept some of their tradition, but they would have started to live in houses, or work in factories, because it is more efficient. maybe they would even have adopted western culture faster, because, as i pointed out, if you try to force a lifestyle on someone, that someone is likely to resist. Probably, the world today would be strikingly similar to what it actually is. At least, the large picture would be.

There would probably be less resentment around. There would be more people with a native surname. more local influences on traditions, local laws, food, fashion, sports, that kind of stuff. Maybe that astronaut who brought a golf ball on the moon to make the record for the longest throw would have brought instead a boomerang, or a bow.

But science and technology would likely be at a similar level if the contact had been peaceful.

 

By the way, both in america and australia, the vast majority of the native casualties came from illness, not weapons. And those epidemics that killed the majority of the native population weren't engineered, they came entirely by accident. Europeans didn't knew about virus and bacteria at the time. they had no idea contact with other populations would exchange diseases. The common story about infected blankets gifted to natives to spread the disease is actually unsupported, or vastly overstimated (can't guarantee the accuracy of this, but it makes sense). the first wave of epidemics happened when the first europeans met the first natives, and it spread form there. The american continent was depopulated before the europeans even set foot on most of it. Quoting from wikipedia,

Epidemics of smallpox (1518, 1521, 1525, 1558, 1589), typhus (1546), influenza (1558), diphtheria (1614) and measles (1618) swept the Americas subsequent to European contact,^[24][25] killing between 10 million and 100 million people, up to 95% of the indigenous population of the Americas. The cultural and political instability attending these losses appears to have been of substantial aid in the efforts of various colonists in New England and Massachusetts to acquire control over the great wealth in land and resources of which indigenous societies had customarily made use. Such diseases yielded human mortality of an unquestionably enormous gravity and scale – and this has profoundly confused efforts to determine its full extent with any true precision. Estimates of the pre-Columbian population of the Americas vary tremendously.

 

So, while attempts to cause further epidemics did probably happen and were more or less succesful, most of the damage was already done by that time. And the europeans then sent vast migratory fluxes because they saw an empty continent, which was empty exactly because no one at the time understood how diseases work. It would have happened even if europeans had come with the best intentions.