(If you know all the arguments about why biodiversity is awesome, or think you do, go ahead and skip down to Cultural Diversity)
Biodiversity
This is an ecology blog! Or at least that’s what the title claims. So, we’re going to talk a little bit about biodiversity. We all know that over the course of life on this planet, there have been many mass extinctions and life rebounded each time. Not only that, life rebounded more quickly. The universe didn’t change its hostile, no, indifferent stance towards us. It is life itself that grew stronger.
After a catastrophe, there will always be at least a few species that miraculously thrive in the new environment, turning a greater tragedy into personal gain. You know, like those assholes who short-sell stock during recessions (a shady practice that only became legal again last year) or Apu in the Simpsons Movie (“please, please, can’t you all just be happy for me?”)
With more diversity of species, more such species will exist. Biodiversity protects biodiversity. Biodiversity means possibilities, and this vast pool of possibilities gave birth to our own species! So, we should respect this vast pool and realize it holds even more potential than we could even imagine. Maybe a rogue earthling bacterium transported by an asteroid is already colonizing another planet right now, slowly fermenting a possible sequel to man.
Too spiritual for you? Too ecocentric? Okay, let’s look at a more pragmatic argument that is just as strong to make sure you’re on the same page as me (even though this doesn’t pertain directly to this post’s point). Let’s start with medicine/biotechnology.
The human body is a vast, complex thing. We understand it more and more all the time, yet some things still allude us. We would like to believe we could build a human body from scratch and therefore reengineer it to fix any problem. The fact is, we still are to biology what a teenage hacker is to code. He knows not how to write a working program, but he can splice code with mixed success and even edit code. One time, he fixed a bug in a perl script, but doesn’t remember how he did it. So we are with our own bodies. We could not, for example, engineer regenerating tissue from scratch, but seeing that sharks have this ability, we just might be able to copy what we see. In fact, many technologies are copied directly from nature.
I just mentioned sharks, right? Here’s one good example of this. A few years back, noting that shark skin seems engineered to repel parasites of all sorts, the guy who discovered this looked at the molecular structure of the skin and made synthetic shark skin to use on navy ships. I just about guarantee that we would not have created such unless we discovered it.
I’ll end the pragmatic side of this argument by pointing out that our species (just like any other) relies heavily on a healthy ecosystem of ecological services, like filtering pollutants and recycling waste. Biodiversity decreases disruption in ecosystems from external factors. For example, if an area becomes warmer due to shifting currents or whatever, trees won’t disappear from the forest but instead a different tree will dominate. The soil will remain fertile, the area will remain not too hot, etc.
Even if you don’t buy all my arguments above, as long as you believe that biodiversity, i.e., the diversity of life, is good for life as a whole, we are good to go… (you needn’t accept that life as a whole is inherently valuable to accept that humanity as a whole is!)
Now, you can basically replace “biodiversity” with “cultural diversity” and “life as a whole” with “humanity” above and you will still be making good sense. There are a variety of ways any cultural dimension can be, and the society or culture in question still function well and the people be happy. Given biological constants, there are amazing variations in thought patterns, taboos, norms, folkways, etc. Most cultures have their own strong points and weak points with regard to human happiness. So what could the advantage of diversity be? Many!!
We can see from histories of ideas that certain kinds of ideas came from certain kinds of cultures. If we had all the same people, but all thinking more similarly, then some ideas are less likely to have arisen or will have much more slowly, since different cultures are focused on different things. Zen Buddhist techniques of teaching intuition will some day revolutionize the West (computer science is just the start), while human rights are enjoyed in nations such as Japan where it is unlikely for such concepts to have arisen (since these peoples don’t buy into erroneous notions of the self we enjoy in the West, such as that of free will). The wonderful thing about ideas is they can be shared! So, when we talk about diversity, the best biological analog is to that of bacteria, where genes can jump from one species to another in a way that it doesn’t with more complex life forms. So, diversity of cultures means a vast marketplace of ideas with which to better society.
We also must be honest with ourselves and recognize that all cultures have advantages and disadvantages. Sometimes, a culture has a fatal flaw in it (and it may even be our culture that has such a flaw in it) that may lead to its own destruction, need for a painful transition or otherwise to great unhappiness for its people. If a culture copies itself, rudely edging out others like cancerous cells, then it may spread said flaw, causing vast unnecessary happiness. Whoever you are, please don’t delude yourself into thinking your culture must be better in every way. After all, you have an intimate knowledge of your own culture and at best a thorough knowledge of others (“at best” meaning if you’ve spent 30+ years in another country).
So, we must preserve cultures’ ability to copy good from other cultures if necessary and also to preserve (and even create!) diversity. This means that cultural imperialism or cultural genocide are no-nos.
The one negative of diversity that cannot be overcome is that no two peoples will always have the same understanding of a situation or even of what reality is. This is why the idea of getting two people to agree fixing a war doesn’t work (miraculous failure of Israeli-Palestinian dialogs demonstrate this, though there may be other ways to end the struggle without both sides agreeing…). Of course, attempts to fix this problem have caused just as many violent clashes as the problem itself. Meaning, even if we really tried to kill cultural diversity, we couldn’t destroy it completely. Look at the religious conflicts through the history of Europe that created no consensus (paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson). So, it’s better to let this thing flourish and be healthy and enjoy its fruits while being mindful of its thorns.
Against Missionaries, be their religion Christianity or Capitalism (or Communism)
Now, I mentioned yesterday my opposition to missionaries. Heh, no secret. I think in an early blog post, I jokingly suggested retaliation by cannibalism to such an offense. Absolute belief that your own culture is correct while others are sadly mistaken is not only bigoted, it’s highly illogical. As proselytizing reduces cultural diversity, I’m of course opposed to it. If everyone were religiously similar, their cultures would be since religion and culture are inseparable. To think otherwise is to not understand how very different modes of thinking can be. It’s important also to be humble and recognize that you may be wrong. Your own culture might be preparing to disappear up its own asshole.
So, you clever people might say to me, “well, you aren’t a Christian, so of course you are going to be against Christian missionaries!” Well, I am at least 90% certain that even if I were a Christian, I’d still be against Christian missionaries. How do I know? Because of my opposition to the violent proselytism on the part of a cult I do belong to – “freedom and democracy”. You see, our nation believes that attacking countries that don’t have basically our political system and installing said will result in world prosperity. It worked for Japan right? Well, ever since adding democracy, freedoms have decreased in Iraq, with the installation of Sharia law. When we hung Saddam, “the international community” (which means all the powerful nations) thought “justice” while Iraqis thought “revenge”. Even if it is beneficial for these people to “become free” (based on our culture’s limited definition), the fact is we failed to help them achieve that goal and we must respect their culture’s right to evolve on their own, at their own pace towards their own valid version of a happy society.
</tirade>
Biodiversity is a good thing, but I fear your analogy is a little too optimistic and a little too progressive. Progressive in the sense of the historical fallacy of “progress” (the opposite of the nostalgia fallacy, not the “I support gay rights” kind of progressive). Meaning, you seem to imply the goal of culture diversity, or it’s ultimate result, is some kind of “super-culture” that has copied all good from other cultures, and expelled all bad.
This is obviously ridiculous, as you yourself point out with your Israeli-Palestine example. Cries of “Can’t we all just get along?” are met with a resounding, and confident answer – “No!”
Jacques Barzun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Barzun) makes a pretty convincing argument that the current trend toward multiculturalism in modern American society is a sign that American, white, middle-class culture is no longer capable of satisfying all the social and psychological needs of those who participate in it. Thus, they begin looking elsewhere for these needs to be met. Who do always you see or hear talking about multiculturalism, any ways?
I’ve been using “multiculturism” to refer to what you sometimes called “cultural diversity.” They are two distinct ideas, I claim. Cultural Diversity is about tolerance, a concept which receives such frequent and uncritical praise one might mistake it for an article of faith. Multiculturism, which seems to be your main argument in favor of Cultural Diversity, is when one culture deliberately adopts elements of another, usually a romanticized version of “authenticity.” “Zen Buddhism” as you say, is a good example, as I assume you’re talking about American or “Suzuki” Buddhism. Before coming to the US, DT Suzuki was a high school English teacher (as in, teaching Japs to speak English). He was not a Zen Monk nor Zen scholar by any stretch of the imagination, even though Americans made him into one.
Now, I am not arguing in favor of cultural isolationism or in favor of the absurd notion of cultural purity. My point is that multiculturalism and bio-diversity are not analogous. A closer analogy would be to an invasive species and an ecosystem trying to adapt to that invader. The modern invader would be, I claim, “relativism” which is the poor man’s post-modernism. There are various other historical examples, in which people have responded in basically the same way, the Protestant Reformation is a good example and one that Barzun favors.
To use a crude analogy, multiculturalism is buying a cat to catch a mouse, buying a dog to catch the cat then buying a gorilla to catch the dog. Cultures, like ecosystems, evolve, adapt and change over time (remember, not all invasive species get there because of Man).
OK, my rant is finished.
Or not quite. I wanted to add, as you point out – “we must respect their culture’s right to evolve on their own, at their own pace towards their own valid version of a happy society.”
Why not our own then? Because it is no longer evolving, but decaying. Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing, but the point to which American Middle-Class culture has evolved. (I shouldn’t have said “white” earlier, lots of non-whites are part of American Middle-Class culture, but it is historically and culturally still associated with white people). And I am not saying we need to start some kind of revivalist movement be it retro, vintage, or Nazi.
All I’m saying is that’s where we are and that is what arguments for cultural diversity indicate.
I’m actually happy about it. It’s just the kind of environment for satirists. The Protestant Reformation had Erasmus, post-Napoleonic France had my idols, Flaubert and Stendhal, late 19C/early 20C Russia had my other idol, Tolstoy.
Note that I’m not arguing for the multiculturalism that liberals embrace (which is, put everyone in a bag, shake and expect utopia to be waiting inside), just, all else being equal, the merits of cultural diversity on the planet as a whole. That could mean all sorts of things and yes, it could be an argument for one’s own culture to have a revival of some sorts in the right situation. The important thing is I’m arguing for the opposite of one really good culture. It’s impossible! You can’t take the good without the bad often. Meaning, it is like engineering. Saying “I would like us Americans to have the intimacy and closeness enjoyed by people in Eastern cultures, but maintain our value of the individual’s rights and integrity” is exactly like saying “I want our giant SUVs that can hold 12 people be as small and light as an Echo, no, scratch that, a mini Cooper!” Cultures can borrow where it works for them, but they shall never be pressured or required to do so from the outside. I’m going to have to accept that Americans are too lazy or retarded to accept the metric system.
Like biodiversity, global cultural diversity is always under attack but not under threat. It’s simply too strong to go away completely (I suggested this in the post w/ my paraphrasing of Jefferson), but any attempt to erode it away usually isn’t going to be for the common good as much as it will be to make humanity less rich as a species. You mention our culture’s stagnation. That’s where cultural diversity comes in! Individuals have other places to flee. A poor boy in India may be able to move to America, land of opportunity (ish) and an American, jaded with individualism or something, can go on a spiritual journey to Tibet.
One important caveat to this idea is that it is, like anything else, “all else being equal.” Generally, it’s good for there to be a variety of cultures on this planet, provided they generally are good, but the rights of individuals trump the importance of any abstract thing. It’s sort of like how species cannot be said to have rights even if animals can and also like how the reason the Holocaust was evil is because it killed ~13 million people in a terrible way more than because ~6 million of the victims happened to be Jewish. So, I hope these arguments aren’t put forth by racialists, nationalists, &c.
I think the confusion in terms is I’m arguing for “global cultural diversity” which is the opposite of what libs here call “cultural diversity.” Perhaps not the opposite, but it can, depending on the situation, be the friend of or the enemy of, global cultural diversity. If you are just talking about “cultural diversity” as libs define it, then yes invasive species is a better analogy, but I think what I’m talking about with the all-important key word /global/ is a good analogy to biodiversity. Certainly, if we were to take the analogy too far, then we would have to be behind cultural isolationism, but that would just be silly. It would also undo some of the possible benefits of global cultural diversity. When cultures should resist change from outside and when they should actively mimic other cultures I can’t tell you…
Who’s attacking “Global Cultural Diversity”? A few insane missionary types? Hippies? Hmmmm.
Also, why is the metric system superior to the US standard system (calling it the English standard system is a bit absurd at this point, don’t you think?) Because scientists use it? Because it’s base ten, like our number system?
It’s a good example of what you’re talking about then. Australians measure their height in feet and inches, time is measured in the ancient Babylonian base 60 fashion, Games Workshop (a UK based company with international popularity) uses inches across the globe. Why? Because that which is being measured is better measured in the US standard system. It’s easier to say “I”m six five” than to say “I’m one point ninety-six”
Well, I don’t think cultures should actively mimic others or resist change. I think the idea of “culture” is what should be attacked. People argue that culture is fluid and changing, offering it up as one of the positive aspects of culture, but could it not also be seen as one of the reasons why the notion of culture is weak? Hence the exponential growth of cultural groups in the last 500 years or so. In 15th century Europe, there was one culture – “Roman”, then people began to claim unique cultures based on religion, language, skin-color, political convictions, and finally superficial personal tastes (that’s basically chronological order, btw).
Any ways, I’ve lost my train of thought. Visit my website.
I went to your website, but all I found was a bunch of shemales? Is that where you’re working to fund your Faberge egg addiction? Plus, it looks like you deleted your wordpress blog, jerk.
Culture is a good concept in the hand of anthropologists, but quite evil in that of chauvinists, parochialists and nationalists. Yeah, people viewing culture correctly as drops of food coloring inside a fluid and not as colored balls in a bucket would be ideal (discrete entities). I’m not arguing for maintaining the “integrity” or “solidarity” of any culture. That would be retarded, though precisely what most people seem to argue for.
The forces of globalization should be to open up trade and allow nations to do it on their own terms (it seems a mercantilist stage is necessary initially as it’s what even we did!!) rather than require what we naively deem “one little change” as if you can switch out one part on a machine made by a completely different manufacturer and expect it to work.
I’ve never actually visited the website. Just made up a URL…. http://www.chickswithdicks.com