status quo assumed preferable
 

. . . Is the ultimate goal of society to oppose diversity?

Say more. What are you asking? By suggesting that "society" has a "goal" (whatever that goal may be) you're giving "society" human-like characteristics in a way that I'm not sure is reasonable or useful.

Society is a collection of humans with human-like characteristics.

society, like water, seeks it's own level

http://www.photoblogster.com/images/..._puddle-01.jpg

***From Wikipedia:


*** I am one of those annoying "ancients" who likes to back my opinion with valid sources and quote them or "plagarize" (NOT!) as some newer members have put it. If this annoys you, please feel free to put me on ignore.

PS Wanna hear my joke, yet?

some people naturally understand the ebb and flow of things. some don't.

If society could agree on a common goal doesn't that imply that it isn't diverse which renders the goal of eliminating diversity kind of moot?

Complete uniformity is undesireable. Complete anarchy is equally undesireable. Either state is out of balance, so society is always somewhere in between...or so I hope.

It really depends upon your definition of the word 'society' and 'diversity'.:)



Personally having experienced opposition in a closed internet society where honesty and it's questions are put down and abuse is praised and upheld I find your question somehow strange and out of place. :blush:

I think before anyone can answer that for you , you might answer it for yourself first. ;)

"PS Wanna hear my joke, yet?"
@marichiko: Sorry, your joke request got lost in the shuffle. Fire away.

"some people naturally understand the ebb and flow of things. some don't."
@lumberjim: Agreed. Observations of that particular phenomenon are quite interesting, but, to me, not quite as interesting as observing an individuals knowlegde, or lack, of the "ebb and flow of things" on the interior side of their interface with the world. It is at that critical point where the individual's perceptions can become skewed, yet it is that same critical point which we, as observers, are lacking in direct knowledge, and therefore where our own perceptions can become skewed. All things being relative, we have to admit that all any person has to go on are their own skewed perceptions.

"If society could agree on a common goal doesn't that imply that it isn't diverse which renders the goal of eliminating diversity kind of moot?"
@Beetsie: Clever. I like that. You revealed an internal paradox to my hypothetical query which did, in fact, render it "moot" if taken at face value. I tried to get it out in as few words as possible, as generically as possible, and in avoiding interpretable specifics I shot myself in the semantic foot.

"Complete uniformity is undesireable. Complete anarchy is equally undesireable. Either state is out of balance, so society is always somewhere in between...or so I hope."
@Elspode: Refered to in nature as homeostasis. There is homeostasis within cells, multi-cellular organisms, and also, as you point out, in multi-organism collectives. The two states you describe remind me of one of the driving forces in my life, which is to nullify, to the highest degree possible, the level of inevitable chaos by over-reaching for an impossible to atain level of logical order, the result of which turns out to be somewhere in the middle. An example, or application, of this would be reducing the amount of mental stressors by catagorizing, simplifying, and dealing with compartmentalized factors as opposed to overwhelming individual details. You get a less fine-tuning but more big-picture. And, I don't think I should have to specify this, but human beings should always be dealt with as individual details. The act of catagorizing humans into groups with defined characteristics is one of the uglier aspects of bigotry.

"I think before anyone can answer that for you , you might answer it for yourself first."
@skysidhe: I assumed the answer would be percieved as implied. I'll give you three guesses.

No it is NOT 'as implied.' My implication was personal obviously. Maybe you are speaking of societies of the world then? American? What kind of society?? I would like a thoughtful answer. Oh and please dumb it down for me. I'm not quite as willing as Elspode to slice and dice all that and make any sense of it.

Thanks



The act of catagorizing humans into groups with defined characteristics is one of the uglier aspects of bigotry.



Then we are a society of bigots. #1 We were born to catogorize. and #2 the word 'bigotry' and it's application is amiss. It isn't the 'big picture' answer.

For you to use the word 'bigot' implies a group of people with defined characteristics and isn't logical to denouce catogorizing in the same breath catogorize.

The language is too confusing. I'll let the smart people figure it out :)

This is way off the subject, but the homeostasis and the introduction of virus into the system.
I only took one microbiology, course... And in the scheme of things, I've never figured out the purpose of the virus.
It does nothing but create death. (well, OK,... it does create itself over and over,... so it does make some sense of life)
Is it just suppose to be natures way for population control? The funny result of overpopulating the host organism, via restructuring the host cell to reproduce more virus to attack more cells to kill the host. Of course, my bad, in applying human traits or design to the intent of virus.

@skysidhe: I've always had trouble interpretting your posting style. My perception, right now, is that you are exhibiting hostility towards me. I hope that's not the case, because I always liked you. You seem like a thoughtful person, but I recall getting these sort of hostile (my perception) messages from you on my board, and it always baffled me. Are we still having a polite conversation? I said "I assumed the answer would be percieved as implied" meaning I assumed that the reader would percieve my implied answer "no, a society will benefit from valuing diversity" - I guess this makes my question a rhetorical question. I clearly said I assumed the reader's perception - which I clearly am not making any claims of having direct knowledge of.

oh my gawd...don't get parinoid. Any precieved tone is comming from inside you due to what you have heard from others. Words don't have sound ????

How can I be any MORE hostile than any other person you have known?. wow.


anyway I don't know how to convince you?? I can post kissy faces??
wanna call me?? I have a great voice. Mellow and calm.


any way

I am trying to have an intellectual conversation. Please note I edited my thoughts. I too am confused by your posting style as well.

There are inconsistencys so what you sense is a desire to understand. Like a dog with a bone. I am not very smart so when I asked you to dummy it down I meant it!



Thank you for using the word rhetorical. That says it all.

@ TiddyBaby

Isn't that cancer???


Anyway. I will let you brains talk and get out of flints way. I trip over big words :P

.....and maybe my stupid way of talking is the pea to flints princess ???



didn't mean to hinder your fun , or make you think I was making growly faces.