"Diversity is good."
How?
No one can explain that to me, properly.
They usually start out with 'think of the great restaurants!' and peter out after that. And it's possible to have a vibrant food selection in an otherwise monocultural environment.
So, keep food out of it. Why is diversity an objective good, as some people keep insisting as tho it were fact?
Hitler or Stalin?
-
The Harris side tells us that Trump is a fascist. The Trump side tells us
that Harris is a communist. Hence, this year a case can be made that most
voters ...
1 hour ago
4 comments:
In purely objective terms, diversity guarantees a wider gene pool, which is usually a good thing. After that it gets more complicated.
Monocultures can be basically harmful, benevolent, vibrant or stagnant. Diversity represents fundamental change, which itself can be harmful or beneficial. The change can also vary in scope. Pat Buchanan famously said that 1 million Englishmen could be absorbed into Virginia more easily than 1 million Zulus could. Conversely, the Zulus would fit in more easily into Detroit than the Englishmen.
Diversity represents cultural change. The greater the diversity, the greater the cultural change. This will benefit those who have gravitated to the bottom of the monoculture, but not those at the top and middle. This presumes a stable, beneficial culture to begin with; some cultures need changing, although not all are in agreement on this. In the UK, the Labour party, which was stagnating and having a hard time competing, changed immigration laws to ensure a supply of like-minded voters. They were successful, but to the fundamental detriment of the UK culture, IMO. Labour party members would disagree, of course.
None of that is a persuasive argument for diversity. Some of it is persuasive against diversity.
Because we're all stuck here with each other, and we have to find some way of living in relative peace together. "Diversity is Good" is a myth, a lie mutually agreed upon to conceal an unpalatable truth. Diversity weakens a society by disrupting social cohesion. Given the choice, people will always prefer the company of their own kind, and will avoid those who are too different unless forced to do otherwise (a service the government is all to happy to provide). It's also customary for a wealthy society to bribe the various factions to keep the peace. But when the money runs out, things get ugly. And when the government loses it's power to compel, you get Bosnia.
So why bother? Because the alternatives are worse.
To me, prowess at ones job, competency - those are the best. In certain areas, diversity is good - for example, different backgrounds come up with different solutions to a problem. But first those involved must know what they are doing.
Note that the only diversity celebrated by talking heads and loudmouths (i.e. celebrities, media, politicians, etc.) is what is fashionable among progressives right then. True diversity would look beyond race and gender - to income level, education, state or region of origin, etc.
One example discussed recently is that all 8 of the current Supreme Court Justices are from coastal states, all of them have degrees from either Harvard or Yale, all of them came from middle class of upper class backgrounds, and none have military experience. Think of the difference in perspectives that could be brought to the court by someone from a poor family who worked their way through college, or by someone who is a military veteran.
Post a Comment