Should A Society Value Diversity?

i tend to think so, but too much diversity can have drawbacks - creating disunity and so forth. It’s a strength and a weakness at the same time, maybe. So what’s the reasonable thing for the state to do with regards to diversity? Foster and encourage it? Or just shun minorities and their interests? i think large states in particular have to learn to accommodate what are already increasingly diverse populations if they are to remain effective. i don’t know that diversity is a largely good or bad thing, but it’s an inevitable thing, and it will surely pose the greatest problems to those states that refuse to accept and deal with it.

A large problem can be bending over backwards to accomodate minorities to the detriment of the majority. Or the reverse. There are ways to have peace.The major way begins in the home at the cradle. The state cannot teach love, tolerance, acceptance and respect, only family can.

Diversity, intelligence, and entropy all have a similar attribute in that if they are applied in a “good” direction then they are “good”. If not, they are “bad”. Every society “should” do what is “good”.

{good luck with that one} :sunglasses:

There are two kinds of social contracts: hobbes’ and Rousseau’s. Hobbes implied that people involve themselves socially, in order to protect the self interest of their group by protecting themselves from the onslaught of other intruding groups, whom they feared.

Rousseau’s idea was different. He held that people group together for reasons of mutual help in beneficial ways, since they did not fear each other.

Which is the right one? It’s a mixture, a flow, constantly changing, evolving. Some times they act as if they knew what they should do, sometimes they act out of fear, and they act according to conditions which are necessarily determined.

In the former they act in accordance to choices available to maximize the benefit of their group, on the other there is only one choice: do as you are told, for the protection of the group.

 James: the entropic situation has less then benificial effects on intelligence, as diversity comes into play with scarcer rescources.  But then all things being dependent, hopefully the intelligence of those involve may reverse their. Downward course accordingly.  I am not too sure, if this is any kind of formula, but it's the only one I could think of which made any sense to me. 

In practical terms, as far as the labor market goes, it behooves employers to maximise this emelement of the labor market, as feasibly as possible.

Hobbes = Group interest.
Rousseau = Self interest.

Neither were particularly wise.

Until one defines “the good”, the question cannot be rationally approached.

  Could definitions be built on the above types of procedures to reverse the entropy?

“Could be” and have been, but until a group agrees upon such definitions, they are irrelevant to that group.

This particular “group” of regulars here, try to never completely agree upon anything, especially anything so immutable as a definition that might lead to understanding and actual progress.