If there is no diversity, there is nothing to be prejudiced about. Prejudice is hardwired in humans and cannot be eradicated. Thus, the best strategy for society is to minimize diversity.
The cause: the rejection of individualism, the rejection of reality, the rejection of capitalism, and the rejection of Ayn Rand. The result: Today's world of collectivism, progressivism, altruism, and the presidency of Donald Trump.
Prejudice is a negative emotion, and no emotion is so hard wired into anyone that it's beyond change. Lack of diversity creates its own set of problems. Japan prior to and during WWII is a good example. Japan is a society with very little diversity, and a great place for racial superiority beliefs to surface and fester. The way they treated others they conquered during the war is a powerful illustration of the negative impact for lack of diversity in a society. Our world is a marvel of diversity, in terms of life forms, which literally number in the billions. Humans number in the billions globally, and show a great deal of variety in form, culture, language, religious beliefs, etc., but ALL humans currently living on Earth are of one single species--Homo Sapiens Sapiens. In terms of species, we're all the same. There's no diversity. But I and many like me find great enjoyment in the myriad of differences Homo Sapiens carve out for themselves in regions and smaller locales around the globe. That diversity is the foundation for the global travel industry. Diversity is a powerful positive force anywhere. The challenge is to find the power to become self regulating in selecting which emotions we will reject or retain within ourselves. Therein lies the secret to self-development as an individual.
How in the world do you make a connection between collectivism, progressivism, altruism and Donald Trump? Donald Trump is none of these. Please explain.
I would say President Trump is a knee-jerk reaction to left's collectivism, progressivism, and altruism. Politically, though not morally, he is America's Hitlerian reaction to the far left. The far right views him as a strong nationalist leader who can fight the good fight for their gang. However, it all still holds true: He is a nationalist, as he is a collectivist; he is a progressive, as he supports public education; and he is an altruist, as he is a Christian. He's the opposite side of the collectivist coin: the left wants to rule in the name of society; the right wants to rule in the name of God; they both want to rule, period. Me? I just want to be free to do as I please.
I see no reason to believe this. You want it to be true, but that is not good enough Sure. But lack of diversity has its good points, also. Japan is a great place to visit because it is so Japanese. I would hate for it to become diverse. Sure. Diversity is great when you are traveling and come home again. Not so good in the neighborhood or town where you dwell. Diversity reduces social cohesion. It also destroys culture. How is diversity a positive force anywhere? I have never heard anything supporting diversity more profound than the increased availability of foreign cuisine. It is tearing this country apart.
1. Every Buddhist & Hindu monk is living proof that I am right & you are wrong on this point. The original teachings of Jesus are in agreement with them (if that matters to you). 2. Diversity doesn't destroy culture, but it does alter it in many ways. It actually produces an entirely new culture all its own. But, what's wrong with that? Culture simply reflects the reality of those living & participating in it at any given time. Culture changes over time just like everything else. Diversity produces culture with more variety. That's a nice thing. 3. How is having a wide variety of food choices a negative, destructive thing? I am American--born & raised in the Old South. I have ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary War. Yet, while I love the food of my birthplace, now, as an adult, my favorite foods are Mediterranean, Mexican & Thai. I certainly don't see having these wonderful, tasty choices in my life and my culture as a negative. Just the opposite. More diversity is like having more of the world available at your fingertips. I think that's wonderful.
Here you are pointing to a lack of diversity as a good thing. How is that a proof of your contention. Amalgamating many cultures into one destroys many cultures and produces one with no interior cohesion. Again you are touting lack of diversity. I pointed out that a variety of cuisines is the only positive aspect used to promote diversity. Do you have any other? Why is it good that neighbors speak different languages, for instance?
