If you don’t have any asteroids crashing on your planet, there is nothing to do about it.
Sure, in effect, we’re not randomly throwing asteroid-cracking missiles out in empty, asteroid-less space.
We’re certainly preparing for it and putting in place pre-emptive countermeasures, though, AFAIK.
Japan and Finland have effective strategies for dealing with cultural diversity, namely: Pre-emptively apply social measures to prevent any cultural diversity from reaching critical mass where it starts having social weight.
Gosh. There’s a lot of people who know that DIversity is Bad (and not just that some specifics things that some ethinicities do that aren’t neecessarily opposed by some form of MC are bad).
Wow. I’d really love to see the chain of reasoning that went from “For dealing with cultural diversity, preventing it altogether is an effective strategy.” all the way to “Cultural diversity is morally wrong and should be prevented at all costs!”
Or were you just assuming that such were my beliefs because I was giving a counterargument to one of your soldiers?
Note: When I get strawmanned, ad-hominem’d or targeted with sarcasm and satire, I do get confrontational. The above tone is intentional, for once.
It’s the most effective strategy because it incurs the least cost for the most effect. It deals with it quite nicely, and there is very little social disturbance.
Whether I think it’s a bad thing, or need a strategy, is irrelevant. Japan has implemented such a strategy. I can’t speak for Finland’s current state because I’m very misinformed on that country, I’ve learned recently.
Indeed, you won’t come up with and implement such a strategy if you think the costs of cultural diversity will be greater than the opportunity costs of not having any + costs of preventing it. This doesn’t prevent anyone from noticing, naming, and perhaps even analyzing this strategy once it has already been used and shown to the world, even if we disagree with the reasons behind its implementation (or disagree on the specific meaning of “dealing with”—for them, not having any is just as much “dealt with” as for us a long-term, self-sustaining/reinforcing, mutually-beneficial ecosystem would be “dealing with” multiple cultures).
It’s the most effective strategy because it incurs the least cost for the most effect. It deals with it quite nicely, and there is very little social disturbance.
If “disturbance” (not “change” or “revitalsiation”) is a cost, and if homegeneity is a benefit...yes. If homegeneity
is bad, and revitalisation is needed, the opposite follows. You don’t have a neutral c/b analysis there, it is loaded.
You could do a polictically neutral analysis in terms of how man dollars or yen immigration brings in, but it is by no means guaranteed to come up with zero as the optimum figure.
If you don’t have any asteroids crashing on your planet, there is nothing to do about it.
Sure, in effect, we’re not randomly throwing asteroid-cracking missiles out in empty, asteroid-less space.
We’re certainly preparing for it and putting in place pre-emptive countermeasures, though, AFAIK.
Japan and Finland have effective strategies for dealing with cultural diversity, namely: Pre-emptively apply social measures to prevent any cultural diversity from reaching critical mass where it starts having social weight.
Against something that is universally assumed to be a Bad Thing.
..and what kind of thing is that?
Gosh. There’s a lot of people who know that DIversity is Bad (and not just that some specifics things that some ethinicities do that aren’t neecessarily opposed by some form of MC are bad).
Wow. I’d really love to see the chain of reasoning that went from “For dealing with cultural diversity, preventing it altogether is an effective strategy.” all the way to “Cultural diversity is morally wrong and should be prevented at all costs!”
Or were you just assuming that such were my beliefs because I was giving a counterargument to one of your soldiers?
Note: When I get strawmanned, ad-hominem’d or targeted with sarcasm and satire, I do get confrontational. The above tone is intentional, for once.
If you don’t think it is a bad thing, why do you need a strategy to prevent it?
It’s the most effective strategy because it incurs the least cost for the most effect. It deals with it quite nicely, and there is very little social disturbance.
Whether I think it’s a bad thing, or need a strategy, is irrelevant. Japan has implemented such a strategy. I can’t speak for Finland’s current state because I’m very misinformed on that country, I’ve learned recently.
Indeed, you won’t come up with and implement such a strategy if you think the costs of cultural diversity will be greater than the opportunity costs of not having any + costs of preventing it. This doesn’t prevent anyone from noticing, naming, and perhaps even analyzing this strategy once it has already been used and shown to the world, even if we disagree with the reasons behind its implementation (or disagree on the specific meaning of “dealing with”—for them, not having any is just as much “dealt with” as for us a long-term, self-sustaining/reinforcing, mutually-beneficial ecosystem would be “dealing with” multiple cultures).
If “disturbance” (not “change” or “revitalsiation”) is a cost, and if homegeneity is a benefit...yes. If homegeneity is bad, and revitalisation is needed, the opposite follows. You don’t have a neutral c/b analysis there, it is loaded.
You could do a polictically neutral analysis in terms of how man dollars or yen immigration brings in, but it is by no means guaranteed to come up with zero as the optimum figure.