I meant blaming immigrants for the fact that people supposedly don’t grow veges or keep chooks any more. Not seeing the connection at all.
Yes, that's a strange observation - urban intensification does contribute to less growing of one's own crops, but I wouldn't say immigrants lead the charge on that, except in so far as they are more likely to live on smaller plots closer to the city. If that is true.
But a bigger contributor would seem to be rising incomes. Subsistence farming is more likely to be a lifestyle choice than a function of poverty these days.
However, our world is not ‘highly stable’. And there’s no zero-sum Darwinian thing going on either.
It's changing, certainly, but it's not totally chaotic. As organisms, we're more alike than we're different - it's a quantum leap to even the nearest species, and the range of species is huge. Even then, the range of conditions they can survive in is so narrow that we have not discovered a single other planet out of the thousands found since the 90s upon which even that enormous range of organisms could survive. Out of the possible range of social orders, we select a very narrow band, for the bulk of the population. We may see that range as vast, but it is a tiny, tiny fraction of the possibilities, much the way that the visible spectrum of light seems diverse to us, but is a tiny fraction of all electromagnetic radiation.
Say we were to categorize the possible social orders by governmental system. How many people would be disappointed by the eradication of any slave oriented societies? Even though that would mean a loss of diversity. Any number of things that we would struggle immensely to find acceptable are possible. The same goes culturally - there are many cultural practices we condemn. That diversity is seen as undesirable. Indeed, when it comes down to it, anyone that believes in a strong society of any kind at all actually prefers that we are more in agreement with each other than disagreement, and we enforce our rules to that effect all the time. Criminal behaviour is not tolerated, and many things are considered criminal that are very much in dispute by large subcultures.
Apart from that I really can’t see what you’re getting at.
I think I can see it. Essentially, the question of whether more diversity is a good thing is not settled according to JH. He's asking why it's good. Good for whom? Good for what purpose? Good in itself, perhaps?
I can't see how any progress could even be made on such a debate until the more basic question of what diversity even actually means is strongly qualified, rather than anecdotally characterized.
A measure of diversity could be the diversity index, although it seems more applicable to biology. Essentially:
A diversity index is a quantitative measure that reflects how many different types (such as species) there are in a dataset, and simultaneously takes into account how evenly the basic entities (such as individuals) are distributed among those types. The value of a diversity index increases both when the number of types increases and when evenness increases. For a given number of types, the value of a diversity index is maximized when all types are equally abundant.
Obviously there are a lot of practical issues that come up when trying to actually quantify diversity for race and culture in this way. You have to fix on the way that the types are enumerated to make comparisons between populations.
But even if you can actually achieve that, and make statements which are not just anecdata, the question of what diversity itself achieves, why it is desirable, is not settled.
It might seem like an easy thing to say that diverse population is more resilient, survives better. But unfortunately that's not necessarily true. If the environment is highly stable, the opposite scenario is very likely, certain types will almost certain dominate very rapidly, whenever they gain a survival advantage. The vast majority of large deviation from the population will die off immediately, never even survive one generation. Most adaption, when a population is well adapted, is detrimental.
But I doubt that mere survival is what most people arguing for higher cultural diversity are talking about. I think they would feel that it's a good unto itself.
This, however, is not self-evident. Certainly quite a lot of a population, especially if it's in a particularly sweet spot, is likely to be against it out of pure self preservation. However liberal we may believe ourselves to be, very few people in NZ, for example, would think that a completely open door immigration policy would be a good idea. They believe, and it's not totally irrational, that such an idea would almost instantly drive NZ to become the least desirable place to be on the planet, simply by virtue of anyone living somewhere less desirable already instantly choosing to switch in. It would become a gigantic refugee camp immediately, in this view.
It would, however, most likely become considerably more diverse.
Wicked, thanks Matt.
It's scary to think just how many square meters of land must be dedicated to my coffee habit, somewhere out there.
I’ve wondered for years whether there is actually any useful metric at all for diversity. It’s not a trivial question, because people use “more diverse” all the time, like it’s a meaningful concept. But what does it actually mean? Can a number be put to it? If not, can we at least order from most to least diverse? Can we ever say we’re there yet, if there is no measurable milestone of any kind?
ETA: I guess we can measure the entropy of the racial data, but does anyone?
Suspect you might be talking about Chorus.
Probably. That's Telecom by another name too, right?
They can change their name all they like, but I still know who they are. I expect they'll be as proactive with 'net TV as they were with the fiber required to deliver it.
I can't think of a way to make their big monopoly model work in this space. My honest opinion is that their days are numbered.
At an end their reign is, and not short enough it was.
At what point did it become a pile-on? What made it okay, if it was okay?
There isn’t a magic boundary, but certainly we can recognize clear examples of a pile on, and Willie and JT got one. Quite a few people did not think it was OK. But it was actually quite hard for them to express that, I think. And being on the other side, one of the pilers, I felt powerful. I don’t regret it in that instance, but I wouldn’t make a habit out of it personally.
Months later, no consequences at all have found their way to the actual Roastbusters, other than the pile-on they got, which does show the limits of the effectiveness. On their Facebook pages, I was rather shocked, TBH, and I’m not easily shocked by abuse. But there were quite literally thousands of people saying that they hoped these guys would get raped and murdered, usually with the writers own sick rape fantasy inserted for variety. But they’re shitheads who don’t give a toss, so all the abuse served only to give them more attention, which they were after in the first place, and also some sympathy.
On the flipside, though, they organized pile-ons themselves, on their victims. And that has been so effective that they haven’t actually suffered any legal consequences for the alleged crimes even now, years later, and after all that public controversy.
There’s no rules for pile-ons, which is probably part of the attraction. Like the Murder on the Orient Express, no one is the killer, and everyone is.
ETA: Presumably that's the attraction of firing squads and stonings as forms of execution too. No one knows who threw the killer stone, and who clean missed. It's the crowd that killed you, not any individuals.
But we use death to make a point all the time, and rightly so.
Indeed. This whole thread is using death to make a point. Even if the point is not to do so, that's still a point.
the rule on the internet has been and always will be
Don’t be a dick
The entire point of there even being a rule of law is because that golden rule does not work in large groups.