Recovering from partisan disaster

[Rg339]

It's no coincidence the biggest proponents of "modern diversity" is the incredibly singularly minded (profit seeking) corporate America.

We've known for no less time than since 2004 that diversity leads to increased crowd wisdom. Indeed, it is a prerequisite.

I’m made uneasy by the increasing influence of corporations on norms here in the US. It’s suggestive that the social leverage of ownership is increasing, which, is generally not a great outcome for the majority of people.

I see people acting according to what behaviors they believe would be acceptable in a work environment even in private conversation. Social interactions are starting to resemble a customer service performance. I recall a time I used to ask people how they’re doing and hear answers other than great, but that’s less common, now. Seems we’re always happy, always productive.

In the end, corporate influence may well end up decreasing, rather than increasing, ideological diversity. Their influence will be towards all capital, all the time, even as capitalism adopting increasingly efficient automation is gonna bring its ability to employ all of the public into more and more doubt

 

[Farm Boy]

Depends on how you measure diversity! I agree that US corporate culture is overpowering and basically a monoculture.

 

[Rg339]

Depends on how you measure diversity! I agree that US corporate culture is overpowering and basically a monoculture.

Well, corporate influence is a mixed bag. It does promote ethnic diversity. It only cares about the color green, so it’s not for the highest of reasons, but, end of the day, it does.

On the other hand, it doesn’t really promote ideological diversity. It’s all for capitalism. Corporate influence is responsible for much of the political status quo; they have alotta influence(financial, and as social facilitators) that they use to support candidates who look favorably on their interests. That’s concerning, because tech is probably gonna devalue the worth of a persons labor for the long term future.

How are Americans gonna make adaptations to shifting, yet likely permanent, economic trends when alotta politicians are in the pocket of corporations? How do you even begin to have a genuine debate about what adaptations might or should be made when a small number of corporations own most major media outlets and normalize what is and isn’t “crazy” according to their interests?

 

[Farm Boy]

Sure, kinda. Ethnic diversity of testicle juice and ovary squeezings is probably less important than diversity of ideas, and getting a diversity of ideas would probably also diversify ball juice... but ball juice is easy and even idiots care about it. Soooo, I guess we should just be glad they aren't lighting crosses so much.

 

[Arwon]

Weirdly enough, US foreign born population is only about 15%, and has only recently climbed back to this level which was last seen a century ago.



It's high compared to Europe but lowish for a rich settler colony. For comparison, Australia is at about 30%, New Zealand about 27% and Canada 22%. On the other hand, about 9% of the EU is foreign born (6% for born outside the EU) but that varies a fair bit with say Sweden at 14% and Germany at 12% vs Finland Czechia and Hungary at 4%. UK is population is 11% foreign born.

(Some of the European very high foreign born outliers have historical reasons relating to independence or being Cyprus, or are microstates, so I ignored them)

 

[Hygro]

I’m made uneasy by the increasing influence of corporations on norms here in the US. It’s suggestive that the social leverage of ownership is increasing, which, is generally not a great outcome for the majority of people.

I see people acting according to what behaviors they believe would be acceptable in a work environment even in private conversation. Social interactions are starting to resemble a customer service performance. I recall a time I used to ask people how they’re doing and hear answers other than great, but that’s less common, now. Seems we’re always happy, always productive.

In the end, corporate influence may well end up decreasing, rather than increasing, ideological diversity. Their influence will be towards all capital, all the time, even as capitalism adopting increasingly efficient automation is gonna bring its ability to employ all of the public into more and more doubt

Isn’t it funny at a time when corporations have managed to narrow us so much, they seek increasing sources of diversity to make up for it.

 

[Modder_Mode]

Therefore?

Therefore it can be a contributing factor to a societies downfall. Theres a reason why colonial powers took over countries with relative ease and it wasn't just firepower and strategic military prowess.

Obviously every collapse hurts least, or even rewards those whose material ways are designed to do well when society sucks.

So at the bottom of the cycle there is homogeneity. But that does not mean it is the homogeneity keeps a society strong or the diversity during the peak that makes it fragile. It just means that those prepared for the bad times are alike. It would be foolish to assume decadence in diversity rather than assume there are cycles and different people flourish at different points.

Theres a reason why you always see working class people at protests regarding living and societal conditions because they are always the ones who feel the first effects of a society in decline, often its the middle and upper class liberals that passes judgement on these people and label them the usual names all because they have genuine concerns about the community that they live in and who have the most to lose, they're often portrayed as simple minded moronic people, theres a good reason why a lot of working class people cant stand liberals as they are being lectured to about how things should be with outcomes that will never affect those liberals, the irony being that these very middle and upper class liberals telling us that diversity is our strength all whilst they live in gated homogeneous communities. I'm not accusing you of being this type of liberal btw, it's just an observation.

That's just rhetoric though. Some of the most stable and safest countries eg Japan and until recently Scandinavia don't have many immigrants.

USA at its height had a dominant culture. Objectively diversity by itself has no real benefit it seems. You just end up with a heap of people who don't really get along.

There is no question that states willing to tolerate diversity in their populations have an enormous advantage over states that do not.

Immigrants themselves generally don't believe in diversity, that's the whole reason why they mostly move to areas to live with people who are most like them.

The fact that left wing people tell us how amazing places like Japan are is telling but the irony is Japan is considered quite homogeneous, a patriarchal society that still largely believes in tradition, the nuclear family, gender roles and hierarchy and also limits as much as it can on immigration and refugee intake and economically is very capitalistic hosting many of the largest companies in the world. Basically everything the left continuously claims is horribly wrong with the West is on full display in Japan, a country that they literally worship for its way of life. Consider that the USA lives in the most progressive era in all of human history, it is more liberal than it has ever been yet it is considered to be so horrible and its always someone else's fault for the horrible failings.

Diversity is strength. But a lack of ties that bind is still a weakness.

If diversity is a strength then you need to be able to demonstrate this?

I don't believe diversity is all doom and gloom like my postings might suggest, I believe that it just has a threshold.

 

[Senethro]

Therefore it can be a contributing factor to a societies downfall. Theres a reason why colonial powers took over countries with relative ease and it wasn't just firepower and strategic military prowess.

I really pause before the next "Therefore?" because I'm not at all sure I want an honest answer.

 

[Farm Boy]

I am using the word as a counterpoint to redundancy. Which also has merits. If you want something done well in less than ideal conditions, you need redundancy. If you want many things done, you need diversity. Doesn't matter if you're talking people, parts, skills, stored goods, moral education, the number of topics under New Business, etc. Developing and maintaining redundancy can and does exist in tension with maintaining and developing useful diversity*. Does that strike you as particularly contentious, Modern? Just trying to start from a similar point not a broad one.

*useful. Erratic QA is a form of diversity, and consistently poor product is a form of redundancy.

 

[Modder_Mode]

This is even assuming the narrative is true at all. The truth is by collapse we basically always mean Rome and do we know if Rome collapsed from diversity into homogeny? What if, relative to the numbers, it was a big mono culture and collapsed into a diversity of diversities?

Who would even know where to begin looking to answer this question?

One of my first ventures into the Civ Fanatics Colosseum forum was about Rome, famous writer Edward Gibbon postulated that in part Rome collapsed because of Christianity and its adherents focusing more of their lives on the next afterlife rather than Rome and the Empires current needs.

 

[El_Machinae]

Please keep in mind that I am asking about recovering. If 'excessive diversity' is being brought forward as a causal factor in a society suffering a disaster, then what's the recovery rate? That would be in comparison to the opposite of 'insufficient diversity' causing a disaster, and then measuring the recovery. I'm less interested in what causes the disaster than the rate of recovery.

 

[Farm Boy]

Is it different to live the recover if the fix is fertilizing vs weeding?

 

[Samson]

The fact that left wing people tell us how amazing places like Japan are

Which left wing people are we talking about here?

 

[Modder_Mode]

I am using the word as a counterpoint to redundancy. Which also has merits. If you want something done well in less than ideal conditions, you need redundancy. If you want many things done, you need diversity. Doesn't matter if you're talking people, parts, skills, stored goods, moral education, the number of topics under New Business, etc. Developing and maintaining redundancy can and does exist in tension with maintaining and developing useful diversity*. Does that strike you as particularly contentious, Modern? Just trying to start from a similar point not a broad one.

*useful. Erratic QA is a form of diversity, and consistently poor product is a form of redundancy.

Culture = expression.

Ramesh lights scented candles because its his tradition and it reminds him of his homeland and he feels his ancestors would greatly approve of this. That's his culture

Jane dresses up in medieval armor on the weekend and attends a medieval re-enactment at the local park with other enthusiasts. That's her culture

These are examples of things that make these people diverse, we all agree that these are absolutely harmless to a society. None of these acts impact or determine the outcome of anything in a society or how a country will function.

However when diversity impacts or determines the outcome of anything in a society with no net gain or it directly impacts the common culture there will always be issues within that country, at first the impacts are not apparent, but as diversity increases and the infinite wants and needs of so much diversity starts to impact on other people within that society people form divisive groups centered around their own interests and agendas which results in division and little cooperation as there is no common goal.
To make matters worse the left have devised a system in which criticism or concerns about any particular culture is met with various buzzwords along the lines of "you're just a [insert]-phobia" or "[insert]-ism" which is designed to shutdown any discussion, which even furthers the divide. Discourse is what makes us in the West so unique in human history, it's a shame were having a culture war over it.