Monday, June 19, 2017

A Thought Experiment about Diversity

The belief that “Diversity is Strength” is pretty much an Orwellian cry of the modern world.

Let us take the average multiculturalist Conservative, multiculturalist Liberal, or multiculturalist Leftist, Cultural Leftist, or multiculturalist Marxist. We can assume that you are vehemently in favour of diversity and immigration – and that you think diversity is the greatest thing ever.

There is a simple question these people need to answer:
With respect to Western countries in Europe like Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, or Belgium, how much diversity is enough?
Is there any limit to diversity?

For example, is the pro-diversity Leftist or Conservative willing to set a limit at which we have had enough diversity?

For example, is it enough diversity when we hit the point when 50% of the total population is of immigrant origin? Or when 60% of the total population is of immigrant origin? Or 70%? Or 80%? Or 90%

Or 100%?

I would like to see the pro-diversity multiculturalists – whether Conservatives or Leftists – answer this question.

How much diversity in the West is enough for you?

And, importantly, are you also calling for similar levels of diversity in African nations, Muslim Middle Eastern nations, Israel, India, South-east Asian nations, China, Japan, and South Korea?

Any takers?

16 comments:

  1. India already has enough diversity.

    Indian diversity resulted in mass murder during the Partition, has resulted in multiple insurgencies and insurrections (such as the Sikh insurgency in the 1980s), and has left several regions unstable and out of control.

    No sane person would want his country as multicultural as India.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a fascinating take. The Partition was indeed horrifying and why anyone would think diversity was good for India is beyond me.

      Delete
  2. I think people have to realize there is much diversity in populations even without immigration, but open borders types never believe in limits, or at least, are never willing to admit it least they lose their argument.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'll take this one, since you asked. First of all I think you have some false framing here, but I'll come back to that.

    IMO Multicultural and pro-diversity leftists like myself are primarily concerned about non-discrimination, acceptance and tolerance. Immigration is merely a subset of broader concerns underneath a recognition that we are one humanity on one earth.

    We also recognize that the issues currently being caused by mass immigration are a result of our own governments geopolitical strategies for resource extraction and global hegemony.

    So we believe people should have the right to move about and seek better opportunities for themselves. The reality is immigration and so called terrorism would slow considerably if Western Governments changed their terrorist creating policies.

    And diversity is a fantastic thing. Just have some Chinese food in San Francisco or any bevy of ethnic food varieties in NYC or Chicago to know that.

    Furthermore, I'll let you in on a little secret: speaking of the USA, it's already 99% immigrant. I'll grant that maybe you do have a point because I'm pretty sure the natives aren't too happy about that!

    But when you ask for a certain percentage and ask how much is too much, I say that's a false question. It could be anywhere on the spectrum from 1-99, but we need to change our ways and our wars first and then let the chips fall where they may!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your answer.

      A few queries:

      (1) if increasing diversity in a largely homogenous society is so great, then why do we have stunning empirical evidence that diversity destroys social trust, cohesion, and social capital?:
      http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2016/09/robert-putnam-on-negative-effects-of.html

      (2) if, hypothetically, it were true that increasing diversity in Europe will result in a devastating Islamist insurgency and civil war, do you still support high levels of mass immigration?

      (3) Do you also advocate high levels of white and Asian immigration into Zimbabwe and other African countries so that native black people become a minority in Africa? Explain why the dispossession and demographic replacement of blacks in Africa would be good for blacks.

      Delete
    2. "Furthermore, I'll let you in on a little secret: speaking of the USA, it's already 99% immigrant"

      No, it isn't. The majority of people were born in America. They are not immigrants. What you mean to say is that most people are descended from immigrants.

      But this only reinforces the bizarre absurdity of the pro-diversity position. Logically, if diversity is awesome, why was it so bad for the Native Americans?

      Delete
    3. "IMO Multicultural and pro-diversity leftists like myself are primarily concerned about non-discrimination, acceptance and tolerance."

      Yes dave, they are tolerant humanists, not multiculturalists or pro cultural diversity. In fact they are against cultural diversity, read Vesta's comment bellow.

      Delete
  4. With respect to Western countries in Europe like Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, or Belgium, how much diversity is enough? Is there any limit to diversity?

    As much as the people there want it and are willing for it to happen.

    For example, is the pro-diversity Leftist or Conservative willing to set a limit at which we have had enough diversity

    That's like setting a limit at which we've had enough Freedom.

    For example, is it enough diversity when we hit the point when 50% of the total population is of immigrant origin? Or when 60% of the total population is of immigrant origin? Or 70%? Or 80%? Or 90% Or 100%?

    See 1st response.

    And, importantly, are you also calling for similar levels of diversity in African nations, Muslim Middle Eastern nations, Israel, India, South-east Asian nations, China, Japan, and South Korea

    Nope. I don't live or pay taxes in any of those countries and therefore they are not my responsibility. If there's oppression, I will definitely to say something.

    No, it isn't. The majority of people were born in America. They are not immigrants. What you mean to say is that most people are descended from immigrants

    The US is still a child playing with it's toes compared to the great Empires of the past. It's still reasonable to insist that we have no real culture and are largely a nation of immigrants.

    Logically, if diversity is awesome, why was it so bad for the Native Americans

    Why was what so bad for the Native Americans? You call the forced expulsion off their land "diversity?" Perverse indeed.

    I bet this won' be published ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seriously Kevin, why would LK supress a comment which doesn't lay a glove on him? Take as just one example your rejoinder to LK's factual statement about the real fraction who are immigrants. You say it's "reasonable" to pretend otherwise.


      I am curious about one thing. "No real culture". Were you one of those complaining about American "cultural imperialism"?

      Delete
  5. My perspective is as a white native-born Bostonian married to a first generation Korean immigrant. I love cultural diversity.

    The great irony is that the only way to maintain a world with diverse cultures is by limiting mixing. A few generations of unlimited mixing and we would all look and act similarly.

    Advocating for unlimited cultural mixing is simply selfish. It means that our generation gets to enjoy abundant diverse societies that took centuries to develop, and screw subsequent generations who only get to read about it.

    This kind of thoughtless, hypocritical, self-satisfied selfishness is everywhere in contemporary America. It's why we're OK with spending our childrens' inheritances and plundering the world we will leave them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We had this convo on Twitter. It depends on what we mean by diversity. Intellectual diversity is a necessity for a healthy society IMO. Otherwise, you get groupthink and collapse (see the run-up to 2008 as case in point).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Take another bow. This time The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/

    ReplyDelete
  8. And another bow. This one is for Kevin and the others who deny there is ever ever ever any vote fraud.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/06/20/report-as-many-as-5-7-million-non-citizens-voted-in-2008-election/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those numbers were arrived at using conjecture and equations, not actual documented cases of voting fraud. It's rather funny that those crying about voter fraud can ever prove voter fraud in court.

      https://votingwars.news21.com/voter-fraud-is-not-a-persistent-problem/

      Hey, I conducted a study that uses a bunch of equations with super-non-biased assumptions that estimates that the number of rapes on college campuses is 8 million times the number of actual convictions for rape in court. It doesn't matter that all the rapes in my estimates are unproven. Obviously we should believe my estimates and chalk the conviction rate up to political bias. Obviously most men in college are rapists. Right, Ken B? Right.

      Oh, I also used statistics to estimate that Russians stole the election from Hillary; don't bother me for hard evidence, it isn't needed.

      As always, voter fraud in the US is the cry of people who don't want to accept that others might vote for candidates they don't like. It's sour grapes, pure and simple.

      Delete
  9. I don't think "diversity is strength" is some sort of universal maxim, nor do I think "diversity is the greatest thing ever." I agree with Suvy that intellectual diversity is a strength, although I suspect LK would counter that it's possible to have intellectual diversity without mass immigration and racial/ethnic diversity. I'd also contend that quantifying what percentage of the population are made up of immigrants is easier than quantifying how "diverse" a society is.

    With that preamble out of the way, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have reservations about immigrants making up 50% of the population in the old world. If foreign born immigrants are the majority in the countries listed, it's coherent to believe that they will affect the dominant culture while not assimilating. This doesn't even touch on whether the immigrants wish to assimilate in the first place, whether their children will assimilate and have rapidly declining fertility rates, and whether the existing institutions in those European countries are even capable of assimilating that many people in the first place.

    I'm less convinced that having 50% immigrant population in the US would be a huge problem. The culture of the United States has developed as a result of the constant influx of immigrants. While there has been plenty of conflict over mass immigration in the US throughout its short history, assimilation has succeeded. None of the generational fearmongering about the current wave of immigrants have come to fruition. Given how much better America is at assimilating immigrant populations , I do think diversity and immigration are an advantage and strength of the United States when compared to other nations in the modern era. Now, as with the European nations, it also depends where the immigrants are coming from, and what their socio-economic background is-I suspect an educated Yoruba would have a much easier time assimilating into American culture than a Mexican farmer. It's also worth noting that the lack of a homogeneous culture in the US has contributed to the complete absence of social democratic ideology in our political discourse.

    I do think many of the non-European countries listed would benefit from immigration and doing more to protect those who aren't part of the dominant culture. If South Africa made more strides to protect the Boer minority, that would be an excellent step in the right direction. It would be wonderful if Saudi Arabia permitted Jews entrance into the kingdom, and allowed them to live as protected minorities. On the other hand, if 50% of Israel's population consisted of foreign born immigrants who weren't Jewish, that would destroy the entire purpose of the Jewish state.

    ReplyDelete