I watched a few documentaries about the North Sentinelese and uncontacted Amazonian tribes, and it's terrifying how violent they are compared to modern standards. They kill and ask questions later.

> terrifying how violent they are compared to modern standards.

Oh you mean October 7th Hamas standards or the Israeli Gaza genocide standards, or maybe the US in Vietnam standards?

It makes sense because the downside is very high (the stranger wants to kill you) but the upside is not (the stranger has something cool to show you or trade with you). It's not like you'd go to prison for murder either.

For what it's worth, cops in America in certain scenarios act the same way, faced with similar upside/downside risks.

That's the only reason they are uncontacted. If they welcomed visitors like the native Hawaiians did, they'd be speaking English today.

I think there's no other way it could be. If you're not violent you get wrecked by modern pathogens and die, or become integrated somewhat into modern society and can no longer be considered "uncontacted".

Yeah this is selection bias. The remaining uncontacted tribes are uncontacted because they are very hostile to outsiders.

In the case of the North Sentinelese, this incident in 1880 might have something to do with their hostility to the outside world.

> After several days, six Sentinelese—an elderly couple and four children—were taken to Port Blair. The colonial officer in charge of the operation wrote that the entire group "sickened rapidly, and the old man and his wife died, so the four children were sent back to their home with quantities of presents".

The alternative is to be potentially oppressed, subjugated, and colonized. A good example is the British Raj. Being peaceful is fine as long as you're able to use overwhelming force and win against someone who might harm you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj

Some gangs are like that today.