Is diversity a good thing Veeky Forums?

Diversity is only good if it isn't forced. Likewise, homogeneity is only good if it isn't forced. Good things aren't forced.

you can demolish society and starve if you want, commie, but don't force me to starve with you.

>you can demolish society
i dont want to do that, i want to create a sustainable society focused around mutual aid, workers self management, liberty and equality.
>commie
i am not a communist lol, underagedb&
> don't force me to starve with you.
actually as an ecologist this is exactly what i am saying to you. global consumer culture will continue to crash and burn, with the externalized ecological systems that provide it with it life and there is nothing you can do to stop that within that system.

What does racial diversity have to do with ecology?

>What does racial diversity have to do with ecology?
ecology is the study of how living things interact you pleb, it effectively replaces sociology. You have the socio-ecological systems model and much more. Its emphasis on dynamic systems with living agents, complexity, and networks make it by far the best way to look at this.

Explaination needed, you communist.

I see no reason why having a mix of blacks, Cherokees, and Asians is superior in it's own right.

No, what you want is a planned economy where everyone starves. There won't be any liberty because you won't allow businesses to grow naturally and the only equality that will exist is everyone being poor.
>i am not a communist
The conclusion of any Marxist political theory is communism, or some other form of totalitarianism. Planned economies don't work. Decentralization works.

It's not superior, it's just a good thing. It means we're all getting along and everyone is exercising their rights and taking opportunities etc.

Looking at humanity from an ecological perspective would kinda lump all the races together wouldn't it? To see where humans fit into the global ecosystem?

>what you want is a planned economy
literally the exact opposite of what i want you idiot.
i want freed markets and preemptively managed externalities.
>There won't be any liberty because you won't allow businesses to grow naturally
where are you getting this information from? You have no idea what you are talking about, keep that in mind the next time you want to leap towards conclusions with no factual evidence to base your propositions from.
>The conclusion of any Marxist political theory is communism, or some other form of totalitarianism. Planned economies don't work
not a marxist.
> Decentralization works.
exactly why i want decentralization, the privatization of property and capital in general allow for power to be centralized in the wealthy and the state that protects them, now we have corporate command economies, protected by economic interventionism on behalf of the state, or simply state command economies like in the PRC or DARPA. you have finance controlling the actions of the state, the media and everything else through power gotten through usury.
You are advocating for centralized power and the nanny state in your acceptance of capitalism.
you probably dont even know what capitalism is, most likely you think it means market economics. This is because capitalists are in control of your education and almost all the information presented to you.
fuck the state and its capital.

>ng at humanity from an ecological perspective would kinda lump all the races together wouldn't it?
In now way is anything lumped together, races are the result of lumping people together.
it doesn't view them as races it views them as populations, like they actually are. Race is an illusory concept.

>You have no idea what you are talking about, keep that in mind the next time you want to leap towards conclusions with no factual evidence to base your propositions from.
Noted. I apologize; when I see people talking about mutual aid and equality in the same sentence I automatically assume communists. I am right most of the time.

I actually find myself in agreement with almost everything you said, with the exception of that bit about privatization of property and a nanny state. You have to allow people to own private property. You can't even have an economy without it. And I'm not in favor of a nanny state. The state should only exist to maintain a national military and enforce anti-trust laws. Right now my country is only doing one of those things and you already know which one it is.

>I actually find myself in agreement with almost everything you said
i figured you would be, most of the time these misconceptions are fixed pretty quickly. Negative propaganda has made all of communism into a monolith and has grouped all anticapitalism/socialism including anarchism into that monolith.
>. You have to allow people to own private property. You can't even have an economy without it.
another thing, you need to recognize the distinction between private and personal property. this distinction has also been erased through negative propaganda.
I firmly believe in peoples right to "own" property insofar as they live with it and work it, this is a natural right. What i dont believe in is the privatization of property into capital that can be bought and sold, this is a legal construct. Privatized property allows for however has the most money to own as much property as they want, while the poor go homeless. This means they have exclusive ownership of the means of production and this is centralized power.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Property?

Diversity is not necessary to do that. In fact, diversity makes it harder to do that.

>i am not a communist lol, underagedb&
>the problem isnt lack of diversity its authoritarian social constructs like private property and corporations, capitalism in general.
Yeah sure.

diversity is good or bad depending on the situation

>i want freed markets
>the problem isnt lack of diversity its authoritarian social constructs like private property and corporations, capitalism in general.

left-libertarianism = autism, the ideology

O no, I just got #btfo.
All my rhetoric and reasoning completely demolished by a simple, elegant argument using nothing but quotations and reaction images.
This is why I don't post about political theory on /pol/ or /b/ my argument always gets demolished like this. I am defeated.

Not saying those studies aren't correct for certain but with such a scientific censorship on racial difference it removes my faith in any study they put out on the matter. Of course chimps show more genetic diversity when apparently humans have none except for exclusively in skin pigmentation.

Good/neutral within a group.
Horrible when between groups.

People need to stop treating eachother and themselves as members of some group, and start treating everyone as individuals.

youtube.com/watch?v=kyqGdQEvTHI

"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness"
Favorite quote from GITS, explaining why an elite team of cyborg hackers/SWAT agents would require a normie brainlet like Togusa.

I'll give an example of why its absolutely essential in society. Every society will collapse, that's just a fact as real as the halting problem. Everything has a beginning and an end. If by some profane miracle one nation conquered the entire globe then when said society collapses the suffering will be of the entire planet. Then again, if the planet is carved into teeny tiny little plots and each one has a different society and culture, well if one of those societies were to collapse it's be no big deal. Neighbors would pick up the slack. People sometimes say the reason the Roman empire failed is cause it expanded too much. I'd argue that the Roman empire was doomed to fail from the start, just like every empire and country that'll ever exist is doomed, and the fact that they grew too large was just a failure to plan for this fact.

Everything dies. Societies, ideas, nations, beliefs. Even the so called "white superior race" will one day die out. Failing to plan for this, and overspecializing will only multiply the pain of death.
Also please don't freak out cause I said everything dies. An idea or society dieing doesn't have to be abrupt or tragic. It could simply be a change or transition to something different. Resisting this change will only bring about pain.

>Failing to plan for this, and overspecializing will only multiply the pain of death.

Are you saying evolution has 'over specialized'?

You must always use REALITY as your touchstone when you are thinking about subjects such as this. Evolution will go on and for hominids that means increasing intelligence.

Hint: it's a trend that has been going for millions of years now.

It's good, only low IQ brainlets and stormfags believe it is not.

Don't @ me

Fuck off weeb

This is an argument against overspecialization not an argument in favor of diversity.

Why should we overdiversify? Why not judge diversity by its merits? Having a diverse crop to resist disease and pests is good, however 99.9% of the time diversity is pointless. Why should I consider someone diverse to be a special snowflake when it there is no reason to?

>overwatch
Might as well go back to Facebook with that shit.

>99.9% of the time diversity is pointless
Diversity is the driving force of evolution. And I'm not just talking about evolution of DNA. I'm talking about anything that evolves over time, such as societies even thoughts ideas and cultures evolve and require diversity. Without diversity there can be no evolution of [INSERT EVOLVING THING HERE] and will be fail when presented with a problem that it can't adapt to because adaptation requires evolution of some kind

Not really, only in a few places does that apply.

If I need a 45LKR ratchet lock, I need a 45LKR ratchet lock. I don't need a rolling pin, I don't need sealing wax, I don't need 20 different kinds of hammer, I can't use any other kind of ratchet lock, only a 45LKR ratchet lock will do.

I don't hate all these other tools, sometimes 20 different hammers are useful, in which case I would obtain 20 different kinds of hammer, it is just that objectively all the facts, logic, reason, experience and knowledge I have point overwhelmingly to my need for a 45LKR ratchet lock such that I have no doubt about it just as I have no doubt that a pencil will fall if I lift it up and let go.

Despite this you would insist that I "diversify" and use something else that inevitably won't work. Why?

It is the same with everything else in life. Pick anything. I don't know. Drink. If someone wants to drink nothing but coors light while another tries a cherry spritzer, vladivostok highball and half a dozen different cocktails that is their business. What crime has the former committed?

works good in theory but not in reality

humans are just too naturally tribalistic

>Diversity is the driving force of evolution.

Nature diversified hominids millions of years ago and continues to do so. Diversification is a breaking apart not a coming together.

What's your argument here?

>Diversity is the driving force of evolution
No that would be adaptation

At least you're honest. Discussion quality is directly related to logical agreement between ideas, so don't keep bringing us down.

we'd be more diverse if not for bottlenecks and near-extinction several times

Intellectual diversity and diversity of viewpoints, absolutely.
Racial diversity, which is what you're thinking of? Absolutely not.
End of story.

Of course biodiversity is a good thing. Look at island-locked species. Like Brits. Fucking disgusting.

Are you kidding, UK is the most diverse country in Europe.

This is good, it means you're improving. Debate is just like exercise, it's uncomfortable, and sometimes painful, because you're subjecting your beliefs and worldview to a stress-test, but that's not a bad thing in and of itself. If someone shows you that you're wrong, don't get upset! Revise your beliefs! Admit you were wrong! Improve! See where you went astray, and learn from your mistakes. There's no shame in making mistakes out of ignorance, as long as you are willing to learn from them.
>All my rhetoric and reasoning completely demolished by a simple, elegant argument using nothing but quotations and reaction images.
This is an oppurtunity, user. Learn from the master. See how they crafted their argument, and how you can use it yourself. What is the core aesthetic? Swhat were they going for? In other words, what do they prioritize? Elegance? Simplicity? Brevity? Irrefutability? LEARN!
> my argument always gets demolished like this. I am defeated.
No, bad user! Debate is like battling, and your arguments are like pokemon! If someone beats you, then that is not cause for shame! I know this may be hard to internalise, but your beliefs do not define you, your ideals and values do. Don't get emotionally invested in your beliefs. If they're wrong, revise them, or discard them. I can tell you value the truth, because even though that other user demolished you in an argument, you didn't hate them for it, but rather praised them. That's good, hold onto that. THAT is a part of you, not your beliefs. If you can understand that, truly grok it on a fundamental level, then you'll realize there's no reason to hold on to beliefs that you know are faulty, and you'll be able to gracefully admit when you're wrong. You value truth, so if someone shows you that one of your beliefs is wrong, then feel happy that you're one step closer to your ideal. Never stop improving.
Best wishes! =)

Culture and being special is for racists. We should replace all white countries with other races until their no whites left while keeping other countries pure. Also any white person who complains will be charged with hate speech and we'll flood their universities with signs to remind them of that.

No, diversity shits on merit.

>left-"""""""""""""""""ibertarianism"""""""""""""""""
No such thing.

Both articles are telling me the same thing. What's the point in posting both of them?

diversity is ok as long as we euthanize all the low IQ people

Not science
Not even being reactionary. This is the wrong board for your thread.