Interesting reading some Gyrus on pro-noble-savage idea. Granted people are safer in civilisation in terms of percentage chance of being killed if plonked into it, than they would be if plonked into an archaic culture, Gyrus questions whether the absolute loss of (say) 140 people now is better than the absolute loss of 1 person in archaic times. It's a good point, but the counter is that Gyrus is forgetting that many more people are also enabled to live due to the same civilizing measures that are reducing the percentage chance of being killed. Plus, what we're interested in is not the sheer statistic or number (and minimizing and maximising that). The statistics are a guide to making a choice; the point is to consider the situation of the average random person being plonked into X situation. One only uses oneself as an example to get the point across of how it would be better or worse for anybody.