Re^4: [OT] Defending Man (against environmentalists)

My post was just a joke, with some pun intended, but nothing of seriousness; I think that should be obvious for the normal PM reader. As I read and re-read your post, it makes me wonder if it's also a joke, or: are you being serious?

Cultural diversity is not only humanity’s hallmark of progress, but an insurance policy against extinction as a species. Diversity gives not only cultural and economic riches derived from different perspectives on natural resources and what it means to be human, but options to problem solving that are stifled in a homogenized society. When such a society is organized around economic goals that are measured by profit margins for private gain by powerful elites, where the demands of those who bear cash as the ticket of admission to the marketplace rule, rather than the needs of people, then those who are deprived – and those who have never been part of such a global economy – must necessarily suffer. The genocide of tribal peoples, therefore, is symptomatic of a deep malaise in the world’s metropolises. Indigenous peoples will suffer the most, but humanity as a whole will suffer the loss of some of its memory, not only of a unique knowledge of the natural world, but of its ability to cope with the future in various, diverse ways.
THY WILL BE DONE, The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil, Gerard Colby with Charlotte Dennett
Harper Collins, 1995, p. 685

Comment on Re^4: [OT] Defending Man (against environmentalists)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^5: [OT] Defending Man (against environmentalists)
by Jenda (Abbot) on Nov 19, 2007 at 16:44 UTC

(We are getting more and more OT) Cultural diversity? Well ... the problem that IMHO most of the prophets of cultural diversity fail to see is that it's supposed to be the cultures that compete, not the individuals. Which the current everythig's-equal multiculturalism prevents. First by banning any competition and second by attempting to create a heterogenous at the smallest scale, but homogenous at the larger one eintopf. Yeah, each of the families in the building comes from a different culture, great isn't it? Well not su much, if you have the very same mix in the next building, the next town, city, country, continent.

The ideal multicultural world would be more homogenous than anything the world had ever known. It used to work the way that you had many more or less homogenized societies that were competing. Each of them more or less different than the others, each of them having some time and space to prove its worth, take from the other ones things that worked (within limits of what change that culture could accept) and adapting to the changing world. If you destroy this by mixing eveything together, there will be no cultures left to compete, no societies that work according to different rules and could take over when another societies loose the direction.

And I'd like to point all that feel allured by the noble words about caring for those deprived versus the lowly economic goals at the examples of results of such ideologies. You may think that you'll do better next time than Soviet Union, China at the times of "culture revolution" and later, Albania, Romania, North Corea, Cuba, Vietnam or Cambodia (to name just a few) did. Maybe you would, but I would not bet on that.

Jenda
Support Denmark!
Defend the free world!

[reply]