Someone explain to me why "diversity" is good.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Hybrid vigor is greatly augmented by selection from the best of each group.

Obviously, but teh principle behind hybrid vigour extends beyond simply pairing strong sets of genes.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Original Posted by BeBro
I'm wondering if that would play much of a role in human societies. The stuff you link to tells it has to do with "selective breeding" (to combine the "best" to get "better results"). I don't think that even in more diverse societies most humans actively search for the "best" partner to combine genetic advantages.

I'd argue that humans and our modern society in particular spends more time and energy 'selectivly breeding' then any animal that has ever evolved on this planet. Everyone should be familiar with the theory that everything a person dose is ultimatly designed to pass on genes, this mean the brain power of some 6 billion people is continualy employed in a selective breeding program that been going on for thousands of years. The fact that its decentralized desion making process and the desision makers are also the subjects dosn't mean its not selective breeding. And as for people not searching for the "best" partner that simply laughable.

Originaly Posted by Whoha
he cratered pretty hard last debate.

Didn't catch that one but in general Hillary has been winning them so I'm not suprized. But your argument (if your actualy making one) is a strawman for two reason. First Hillary is also far smarter then average so lossing a debate or the nomination all together in no way informative of Barracks prowess vs an average person. Second the political nomination process is a terrible means of testing the intelligence of a person, if anything the patern appears to me to be that the more intelligent candidate always loses. Do I even NEED to site my example here, your already thinking it!

Originaly Posted by Caligastia
Hybrid vigor is greatly augmented by selection from the best of each group.

And both his parents are Universtiy educated scollars, PHD studies at Harvard in the case of his father. Sounds like the cream of the crop to me. Whats your point?

[VetLegion]

And the principle of regression to the mean makes hybrid vigour insignificant in its impact.

[Impaler[WrG]]

PopeyCock!! Regression to the mean operates across the entire spectrum moving all individuals ON AVERAGE towards the mean. Individuals far from the mean can and do still arrise all the time, if they didn't the populations diverstity would collapse into the mean. Applying any additional factor positive or negative to the population will result in a movment of the mean itself, hybridizing two previosly destinct populations would constitute a positive mean incressing factor.

[VetLegion]

How about rephrasing that, I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at?

[Impaler[WrG]]

Ok imagine a normal distribution for a population, its a nice bell shaped curve and we know most individuals are clustering around the mean. If I track the off-spring of each individuals relitive to its own place on the distribution I will find that most off spring are closer to the mean then the parent. The key word is MOST, some offspring move away from the mean. Both thouse born of average parents and thouse born or more deviant ones can do this. If the offspring always moved back towards the mean then very rapidly the population would be entirely clustered their, likewise if they moved away all the time the bell curve would bifurcate.

Regression dosn't prevent the mean from changing if theirs something influencing. In this case Hybridizing two previously seperate populations.

For others that may not be aware Regression to the mean is a statistical concept aplicable to many areas other then genetics. For example theirs a controversy over the Katrena Huricane season and globalwarming. The season following Katrena was milder and this taken as an argument that theirs no patern of warming. But Regression to the mean dictates that the next season should be closer to the mean as it was. The mean may infact be changing and if its a slow change it won't be aparent for a long time. The stock-market is another great example, over 100 years the rising mean is clear but over any day, year or even a decade zigs and zags obscure it but we can be sure that 'corrections' will bring us back.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Obviously, but teh principle behind hybrid vigour extends beyond simply pairing strong sets of genes.

Yes, well, I'd say that hybrid vigor is a pretty miniscule benefit of diversity unless most people are mixing - which they aren't.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
And both his parents are Universtiy educated scollars, PHD studies at Harvard in the case of his father. Sounds like the cream of the crop to me. Whats your point?

See my post above.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Caligastia
To me, sovereignty comes second to the elimination of barbarism. I don't give a **** about your sovereignty if you're torturing, maiming, and raping your people. Aneeshm's statement smacks of moral relativism.

No way. I am probably more judgemental of other cultures than most. But I separate my moral judgements of other cultures from the institutional policy I think should be followed by a state.

So even though I feel truly disgusted by the treatment of women and non-Muslims in some countries of the Middle East, and I think it is morally wrong and abhorrent, that doesn't change the fact that as long as they don't mess with me, I won't mess with them.

This has nothing to do even with rights - their culture may be so abhorrent that they may have zilch rights, but the reason that they should not be invaded is because it's bad policy. Note, however, that it is not bad policy because their culture is valuable or good. The policy of not interfering as much as possible has nothing to do with the moral value of any culture it ends up protecting.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yep. One need only to remember how imperialism was cloaked in the garb civilizing the barbarians.

It is our (humans') regrettable inability to separate what is from what we think ought to be, and to separate instinctive moral judgements from analysis of state policy, which leads to the masses supporting such imperialism.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Oh, as for aneeshm's statement smacking of moral relativism, I hope so, for that means he's rejected bull**** of moral absolutism .

Still an absolutist, I'm afraid.

But I've learned to separate an analysis of state policy and the role of international institutions from moral judgements on the status of other cultures.

That is, sovereignty is an institutional policy, and has nothing whatsoever to do with moral judgements.

[Impaler[WrG]]

But I've learned to separate an analysis of state policy and the role of international institutions from moral judgements on the status of other cultures.

Then what principle guides your opinion on state policy? Do you apply Utilitarianism to the State while allowing Moral absolutism for your self? What if the scale of the senario is reduced from that of a state to just another person would you avoid confrontation with some someone you felt was moraly inferior (he beats his wife for example) or shun/denounce the person.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
Didn't catch that one but in general Hillary has been winning them so I'm not suprized. But your argument (if your actualy making one) is a strawman for two reason. First Hillary is also far smarter then average so lossing a debate or the nomination all together in no way informative of Barracks prowess vs an average person. Second the political nomination process is a terrible means of testing the intelligence of a person, if anything the patern appears to me to be that the more intelligent candidate always loses. Do I even NEED to site my example here, your already thinking it!

He announced to the world that he knew ahead of time what the question he was going to be asked at the latest debate when the "questioner" flubbed her line and he didn't catch it, and still mentioned personal information about the questioner that she did not reveal. I'm not really making a point with that argument though, because this doesn't really apply to humans.

[aneeshm]

The state is one of the four pillars of any living civilisation. Its purpose is to act as that coercive institution which enables the other three constituent institutions of a civilisation to exist (what they are is not relevant at this moment). It does this by protecting the rights of its citizens at an individual level (as this is the best method found till now). All that does not add towards this goal is not the job of the state.

For this job, the state requires two things - a mechanism to maintain internal stability, peace, and justice, and a second mechanism to maintain the integrity of the state itself (and the civilisation it is committed to enable and protect) against coercive assault from other states which may violate the rights of its citizens.

In a world with each state of this nature, assaults would not happen. However, as we do not live in such a world, it is necessary for the state to maintain such a defence mechanism.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
I'd argue that humans and our modern society in particular spends more time and energy 'selectivly breeding' then any animal that has ever evolved on this planet. Everyone should be familiar with the theory that everything a person dose is ultimatly designed to pass on genes, this mean the brain power of some 6 billion people is continualy employed in a selective breeding program that been going on for thousands of years. The fact that its decentralized desion making process and the desision makers are also the subjects dosn't mean its not selective breeding. And as for people not searching for the "best" partner that simply laughable.

That's just one half of what I said. I said the "best" to combine genetic advantages. Certainly many people will actively search for a partner and think of him as the "best" but that doesn't mean he really is that in a genetical sense.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by aneeshm


No way. I am probably more judgemental of other cultures than most. But I separate my moral judgements of other cultures from the institutional policy I think should be followed by a state.

So even though I feel truly disgusted by the treatment of women and non-Muslims in some countries of the Middle East, and I think it is morally wrong and abhorrent, that doesn't change the fact that as long as they don't mess with me, I won't mess with them.

This has nothing to do even with rights - their culture may be so abhorrent that they may have zilch rights, but the reason that they should not be invaded is because it's bad policy. Note, however, that it is not bad policy because their culture is valuable or good. The policy of not interfering as much as possible has nothing to do with the moral value of any culture it ends up protecting.

Good points, but I still disagree with inaction in the face of crimes against humanity. Should genocide be allowed to run its course, when it could possibly be stopped?