Why is Diversity Deemed to be A Good Thing?

[Az]

But if it is utalitaria, what would you say to kamikaze bombers? aren't they doing something thats utalitarian for their culture?

There is no such thing as "utilitarian for their culture". It may be benefitting their culture or may be not, but while determining the ethical value of it, you look at the entire picture.

Does that make them more superior to other culture?

Of course not, since what they're doing is unethical.

[Zero]

ill prevent myself from dragging this thread down to another ethics thread

[MrFun]

Re: Why is Diversity Deemed to be A Good Thing?

Originally posted by Boddington's
The main argument I've seen is that when people of different genetic stocks breed, genetic illnesses, diseases and afflictions tend to be removed.

So, by allowing diversity in a nation, the policy implies that the quality of that nation's genetic stock will be maximised, creating a Master Race.

If that is the ultimate aim of diversity, to obtain a Master Race, how can those favouring immigration/diversity criticise other countries for wanting to keep - in their opinion - racially and ethnically pure. In their opinion, a similar ethnic stock might be the idea of top quality ethnic stock.

I am a strong advocate for diversity, but I have never heard the "Master Race" argument used to advocate diversity, nor have I myself, ever used that argument. It does not seem to make sense, IMO.

Originally posted by Boddington's
So the above discounts that theory of diversity.

Next are its downfalls. The vast majority of social problems in Western nations are due to the immigration of immigration and the lack of social cohesiveness that arises.

Indeed, many European states with their generous welfare reforms only work so well in some countries because it is a community. Everyone is the same colour. Everyone is dervied from the same/similar ancestors. Thus they are willing to help each other out at times at need. In a way, this is like the passing on of your genes, but in a macro sense.

Diversity offers no real benefits, and plenty of problems.

So the problems with Europe began when white ancestors migrated into that continent from Central Asia and Middle East in prehistoric and ancient eras?

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Boddington's


Reverse the example. Who is the considering whether something is a birth defect or not? To some nations, lighter skin could be seen as more of a birth defect than having six fingers per hand, for example.

Hence no "diversity".

I suggest you at least get out more and appreciate the range of culture within any one nation, rather than simply packaging each nation in the same wrapping paper.

Originally posted by Boddington's


We need to learn from history. But OK..

i) Longer working lives

What does that mean? Stopping people from claiming a pension until they are older? That's the only way I can think of doing it - and there's plenty of 50 somethings who can't get employed now, you want a lot of 60-70 somethings to join them?

Yes, even more poverty among the elderly is a solution. So would be forcing anyone over the age of 10 into the labour market. You want that system back? Go talk to some folks who lived with it and see how they feel about it.

Originally posted by Boddington's
ii) More saving (spend less now in prep for retirement)

Not bad advice, but it's not going to help every case - most UK adults spend their working lives just paying a mortgage (home loan) to own their own pad.

Originally posted by Boddington's
iii) Divert government funds from other sectors to pay for it, ie privatise NHS

Yes, a very effective way of stopping people growing old. Refuse them health care so they never get the option. You think ANY party will have that in their manifesto? It's political suicide.

Originally posted by Boddington's
iv) Increase birth rate of native population

How do you do this? Statutory copulation hours? Persecute young women of child bearing age who choose not to get pregnant?

You can't legislate a birth rate Bods. Govts can only do so much.

You could use draconian measures like the above to boost the birth rate - but if the parents don't want the kids, what sort of a life does that promise? You honestly think they'll want to be productive, employable people?

[Az]

ill prevent myself from dragging this thread down to another ethics thread

Open a thread that will ask me about it.

[Uncle Sparky]

Originally posted by Azazel
Glad to break your mood.

What the **** do you mean by "you people" ??? Were all your ancestors from the same small village somewhere ? Are you saying that if someone marries from outside "their people" then "their people" will somehow be come impure and die off ? What about their children - will they just be a mongrel race ?

Yes, that's what I meant. *sigh*

Read some more of my posts around, before you begin slinging mud my direction, and calling me a racist. What I meant is that population of Europe is declining, and it's culture is dissappearing.

1. - There is no such thing as European culture. Most European cultures (and other worldwide cultures) are alive and well in Canada. We pride ourselves on diversity.

2. - Individuals should decide which cultural trates are important to them. If enough people in a group think a trate is important, it will survive, if not it will fade out & die. There is nothing wrong with that. European cultures have abandon state sanctioned anti-Semetism. You may argue that this has weakened their cultures. and there are political groups in most Europian countries that would agree !

Originally posted by Azazel

Individuals should be allowed to decide which cultural traits they will embrace or ignore. The more cultures they are exposed to, the more variety they can choose from & enjoy. A monocultural society, one where the state has decided "This is what it means to be a true German" or "This is what it means to be a patriotic American" are doing their citizens a great disservice for the sake of cohesion.

Very cute, yet completely castrating the meaning of the world "culture" into what food you eat and what music you listen to.

Now you're tho one being cute.

Deciding ones culture is more then " what food you eat and what music you listen to." It means:
- how & where your children are educated
- what sort of spirtual guidance you give them, formally & informally
- whether you teach them hate or respect for others,
- whether you have enough confidence and faith in yourself to let them be themselves and associate with and/or marry who they want without feeling that you have to make sure they end up a "good Jew" or a "proud Greek". - and "culture" be damned !

[Lord Merciless]

Diversities don't just imply ethnic or cultural diversities. At workplaces, diversity in skills is certainly more important. A problem can be solved much faster if different people approach it from different angle.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Cruddy


I suggest you at least get out more and appreciate the range of culture within any one nation, rather than simply packaging each nation in the same wrapping paper.

I was quoting examples, not trying to stereotype.

What does that mean? Stopping people from claiming a pension until they are older? That's the only way I can think of doing it - and there's plenty of 50 somethings who can't get employed now, you want a lot of 60-70 somethings to join them?

Let workers choose when they want to retire. But have the catch that the younger you retire, the less your pension will be. It's only fair.

Yes, even more poverty among the elderly is a solution. So would be forcing anyone over the age of 10 into the labour market. You want that system back? Go talk to some folks who lived with it and see how they feel about it.

If the elderly work, they should be better off than if they were solely drawing on a pension.

Not bad advice, but it's not going to help every case - most UK adults spend their working lives just paying a mortgage (home loan) to own their own pad.

Don't see how this is relevant. If people decide to invest in an asset rather than consuming it (renting), that's their choice.

Yes, a very effective way of stopping people growing old. Refuse them health care so they never get the option. You think ANY party will have that in their manifesto? It's political suicide.

It would give people the choice of the trade-off between health care and a comfortable retirement. Which would you prefer, if the supply was restricted to one? Economic decisions are tough, individual decisions, and hence governments should not be making them for us.

Basically it's adjusting the system so that individuals pay for their own pensions funds based on their own preferences, rather than the government trying to work out what is best for them and acting accordingly - a situation which currently ends up making the growing number of pensioners rely on a relatively falling number of workers.

How do you do this? Statutory copulation hours? Persecute young women of child bearing age who choose not to get pregnant?

You can't legislate a birth rate Bods. Govts can only do so much.

There are many, many ways.

I've had a quick look for you, but this is the best I can find. I read a fascinating piece during A-level studies that I can't seem to find.

http://www.blonnet.com/iw/2001/08/19/stories/0719g151.htm

You could use draconian measures like the above to boost the birth rate - but if the parents don't want the kids, what sort of a life does that promise? You honestly think they'll want to be productive, employable people?

Money affects people's desire to have kids. It might seem disingenuous looking one way at it - why for example would you have more children if your wealth increased?

However, consider the inverse. If you were reduced from a comfortable middle-class existence to a working-class one, striving for every loaf of bread, the last thing on your mind would be thinking of feeding an extra three mouths. Remove that poverty pressure and you have a population whose birth rates will rise.

Small changes like subsidising children's food and clothing, and increasing child benefit for native citizens does have a real impact.

Or alternatively we could poach the cream from developing nations and leave them in the ****ter even more. Our choice..

[Az]

I have a HW deadline due in 20 minutes. I'll answer later.

[Az]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky


1. - There is no such thing as European culture. Most European cultures (and other worldwide cultures) are alive and well in Canada. We pride ourselves on diversity.

Good for you. So?

2. - Individuals should decide which cultural trates are important to them. If enough people in a group think a trate is important, it will survive, if not it will fade out & die. There is nothing wrong with that.

Individuals do NOT decide on their own culture. Culture is something that, by far and large, is being transferred, while evolving, from generation to generation.

European cultures have abandon state sanctioned anti-Semetism. You may argue that this has weakened their cultures. and there are political groups in most Europian countries that would agree !

That's great! But on the other hand, remembering your predictions about the war in Iraq's ramifications on the surrounding regimes, and their accuracy, ala "Jordan is going to fall in a couple of weeks", those organizations you refer to might very well be pink Zebras munching on beautiful plastic orange lettuce.

Deciding ones culture is more then " what food you eat and what music you listen to." It means:
- how & where your children are educated
- what sort of spirtual guidance you give them, formally & informally
- whether you teach them hate or respect for others,
- whether you have enough confidence and faith in yourself to let them be themselves and associate with and/or marry who they want without feeling that you have to make sure they end up a "good Jew" or a "proud Greek". - and "culture" be damned !

You're refuting yourself. By choosing where your children are educated, and what spiritual guidence you give them you very much decide upon their culture and indoctrinate them since young age into your system of beliefs and values. By far and large, children do not change from the culture of their parents. The can switch sub-cultures, and they often do, but such cultural change comes very rarely.

[Sava]

If everyone's the same, things aren't terribly interesting. I don't get you Bodd's, I mean I know you hate anyone who isn't like you, but you consider "homo" (meaning "same"), to be a bad thing. Yet you are saying things are better if we're the same.

Genetic diversity is a good thing... that's why incest is bad... because you get three-eyed kids and sh1t. There's less of a chance of genetically inherited problems if two people from vastly different ethnic backgrounds produce offspring.

Diversity is good. Bigotry, hatred, and ignorance are bad.

[Az]

diversity isn't ALWAYS a good thing.

[Solly]

"Genetic diversity is a good thing... that's why incest is bad... because you get three-eyed kids and sh1t. There's less of a chance of genetically inherited problems if two people from vastly different ethnic backgrounds produce offspring."

So you want a Master Race with superior genetics?

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Boddington's
So you want a Master Race with superior genetics?

All the current races of humanity slowly merging through interbreeding over the next couple of thousands years isn't necessarily bad. However, one of the existing races deciding to actively pursue the extinction of any of the others is clearly a different thing.

[Az]

What do you think of one of the "races" dissappearing?

( It's the "how will my children be able to date blond chicks" question )