Diversity is not a good thing

Post Reply New Topic

Restricting people’s freedom to move about and mingle for the sake of ethnic purity is bad. Restricting people’s freedom of thought and speech for the sake of cultural or ideological purity is bad. Of course, we’re not going to agree if you don’t give a s**t about said freedoms and do give one about ethnic, cultural or ideological power, whatever that’s supposed to mean.

I'd like more homogeneity, but then I'm also not sure whether my clones would turn out anything like me personality-wise.
And if my past with people very similar to me is any indication, even if they did we would not have fewer conflicts.
They say you hate in others what you can't accept in yourself. I wonder how that would work out in a world of clones.

More seriously (but still just the opinion of one naive person):

Diversity is a loaded word. I means so many different things to different people. It's abstract enough to not be approximate-able by a dictionary definition, nevermind the attempts, so I won't attempt to do battle with that-which-you-call-diversity.

I prefer to think of what I would like to see happen in terms of simple lack of judgment, which can be hard because we do form prejudices against this and that based on our experiences. Its the process of typification that allows for categorizations of even things like apples, lions, geodes, curry, and such. This process as applied to people can be destructive if not done very carefully and with a willingness to be wrong (and admitting incorrectness is its own fight). All males have a Y chromosome because that's what it is to be male, but are all suburban kids brats? What aspects of people can be rightly typified? What set of phenomena effectively approximate a type?

Cultivating epoché would allow for whatever natural and harmonious diversity there is to come of its own accord. I see no way to enforce the end ideal with any set of rules (an abstract/symbolic[/incorrect] use of Rice's Theorem as applied to bureaucratic machinery and it's impact on the language of behavior).

I could compare this with something I found a while ago about traffic jams. An engineer found that he could singlehandedly manipulate them simply by conscientiously changing his own behavior. You could try to enact rules meant to dissipate jams, but if they fail to truly engender this kind of behavior (perhaps only begetting a caricature of it) they could embellish the dynamic that gives rise to and maintains the jams even further, making it just that much harder to see and fix the root cause.

Of course, there's still the tragedy of the commons to deal with. Heck, the whole human condition, in all its diversity.