I was going to make a post about multiculturalism but I kept questioning myself what I really meant by what I asked. So how do people researching in multiculturalism conduct qualitative research. What do you even measure. When someone claim that one place is more multicultural than the other, what did he mean by this?
I post it here since the humanities are the disciplines that study human cultures. And pls don't bother with if multiculturalism is good or bad, that isn't relevant in the slightest to what I'm asking.
I guess you measure it relative to the social/cultural norms of the whatever time you are researching, which is pretty hard to do considering we generally know next to jack shit about social/cultural norms the further you look back.
"Multiculturalism" is often just a buzzword used by pundits and PR reps to sell immigration to the voting public for the purpose of fueling our GDP myopic drive towards infinite growth.
>>962960
>What do you even measure
The answer is so obvious I think I may have misunderstood the question but it goes something along the lines of
>number of religions
>number of different ethnicities/races
>number of different cultures
>the amount of or lack of ethnic, racial, cultural tensions (amount having inverse relationship with multiculturality)
>inclusion of all of said ethnics, races and cultures in the political/social/cultural life
P.S. multiculturalism sucks ass.
>>962960
it's memes. it's all memes.
a culture isn't a monolithic entity. whatever some moron thinks is his identity has already been mixed and diluted since its conception. when people talk about it they're just saying "let's get along with those other people" or "those other people are the reason for all your suffering"
>>963006
>it's memes. it's all memes.
>a culture isn't a monolithic entity.
No there is a clear distinction between different cultures and similarly societies that tolerate different cultures and those that don't.
>>962960
Is America even multicultural?
Multi ethnic maybe
>>962977
>infinite growth
What would viable alternatives look like? Infinite growth has been built up like the best way. Well, is it?
>>963019
they combined and became captain planet
>>963020
>What would viable alternatives look like?
There are none. It is one of the basic functions of life to grow and expand as long as the conditions allow for it.
>>963030
Cannibalism is also a trait common to our ancestors. The awareness alters the responsibility.
>>963036
Trait =/= function.
Besides cannibalism isn't a trait. It's a cultural phenomenon and not all that common.
>The awareness alters the responsibility.
?
>>963047
See neanderthal and heidelbergensis, And I mean that in terms of recognising that 'infinite growth' isn't desirable.
>>963059
Elaborate pls.
>>963065
For the longevity of our species to be extended the rate of resource use should be decreased, also known as recognising biological limits.
>>963071
>For the longevity of our species to be extended the rate of resource use should be decreased
This reeks of ungrounded assumptions.
I would posit that it is always more desired to consume all the resources needed to fulfill our wants in the now than to preserve them for the future. So far it has played out simply because it also enables all kinds of progresses be made at the full capacity and these progresses are making us able to produce/reach more of the needed resources while making the depleted ones irrelevant. Simply said the more people you have the larger potential for new ideas and progress there is. The larger the current industry and economy is, the greater its potential for producing new methods of adapting to the changing landscape of resources. It's a self sustaining process, in that way.
Similarly, if you were a hunter gatherer, you would fare better if you ate what you had so that you could be at your best during your next hunt, instead of dieting and half starving yourself to extend the amount you currently have to its maximum, effectively depriving yourself of potential future. Of course you run the risk of running out of food with no wild herds in sight, but life has proved that this risk is minuscule enough for life having evolved the other way. Or do you hold yourself higher than the largest empirical experiment there is?
Do not get stuck in the notion that all change is bad. Dying species or changing nature is nothing to weap for. If our actions bring about a catastrophe then that's an inevitability stemming from the nature of things. Of life and what behavior made their survival possible in the first place, to be exact.
>>963086
>I would posit that it is always more desired to consume all the resources needed to fulfill our wants in the now than to preserve them for the future.
So you are willing to gamble on the possibility that we are able to establish interplanetary colonies?
I agree with almost everything else you mentioned. Have you heard of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mismatch_theory
>>963092
>So you are willing to gamble on the possibility that we are able to establish interplanetary colonies?
Basically I'm of the opinion that my will is irrelevant. We can't go against our nature. If it's in our nature to expand, we will continue to do so for as long as the conditions allow for it. It is not up to ourselves.
I frequently find myself observing the hubris of people thinking that just because they are able to put words after one another they now are somehow separate from the nature and its rules. People easily fall for made up problems and believe that human thought is required to solve it, as if our cognisance is able to trump evolution which in essence is just chemistry. For example the thought that the intervention of doctors is required at times when it has actually proven to be counterproductive simply because we're fallaciously and naively thinking a doctors presence can trump a careful process of elimination and effectivisation spanning millions of years and relying on the most objective measures and evidence there is.
I may have went on a tangent but basically I believe that if we fuck up, there was no other alternative. Determinism I guess.
>Have you heard of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mismatch_theory
Familiar with the concept but I haven't read much about it.
If what I believe in is true then the fact that we're able to observe and conceptualize such things doesn't necessarily mean we can affect or alter it in any way.
Maybe gene manipulation would turn all of this on its head though.
>>963119
>Maybe gene manipulation would turn all of this on its head though
How can you claim this as a possibility yet deny the assortment of change demonstrated through history which isn't necessarily understandable in a deterministic sense, let alone human evolution as a social species. And even if you doubt the possibility see eusocial insects as an example of the extent of evolutionary pressures.
>>963086
>>963119
Naturalistic answers are always bullshit and this one is no different.
Our hunter-gatherer baggage is the same thing that drives us to become morbidly obese when confronted with modern food, "an inevitability stemming from the nature of things." Back then, if you had access to delicious sugars and calories, you ate all of them without question, because any genetic freak who was dysfunctional enough to pass up such a treat would starve. So our taste buds and other internal measuring systems have almost no limit in their love for sugar, fat and salt - certainly not a low enough limit that we can avoid diabetes, obesity or hypertension simply by trusting our body to tell us when to stop stuffing our stomach with fries and cakes and syrup.
But I guess we can't go against nature, right? If it's our nature to expand, then we will continue to become increasingly obese as we eat more and more unhealthy food. Don't worry, we've invented motorized carts, liposuction and robots so we can sustain our current rate of inflation without impacting the economy.
>>963139
>which isn't necessarily understandable in a deterministic sense
How so?
Do you also think abstract concepts such as resource scarcity constitute an evolutionary pressure? That our minds are able to overcome our biological needs?
>>963140
I don't see a contradiction to what I said.
>then we will continue to become increasingly obese as we eat more and more unhealthy food
But eating fatty foods isn't the only biological want we have. For example the want to be wanted and desired would mean that we don't keep getting infinitely fatter, though that depends on the person in particular.
>>963119
The closest thing we have to gene manipulation now is spreading useful or harmful memes.
For example, advertising pushes memes encouraging us to consume. Environmentalist propaganda pushes memes encouraging us to save resources, and so on.
You might think humans can't be reprogrammed like that but look at all those weird as fuck cults like the Amish or Ultra-Orthodox Jews.
>>963161
>How so?
It would be explainable in a deterministic way, yet no one would be able to explain it perfectly.
Do you also think abstract concepts such as resource scarcity constitute an evolutionary pressure?
Nigga please, learn evolution, history, biology, geography, and stop taking everything so personally.
>>963163
>You might think humans can't be reprogrammed like that but look at all those weird as fuck cults like the Amish or Ultra-Orthodox Jews.
What if these aren't examples of the possibilities to which humans can be programmed but merely a counter reaction to the mainstream? Meaning the mere fact that they're considered extreme is what keeps these movements alive?
Isn't this what gave birth to these movements in the first place?
>whoah did you see Abraham?
>he actually gave up on electricity because it goes against his beliefs
>man is he a zealot or what
Would Abraham have given up on electricity if this act wouldn't have garnered such a response? Wouldn't have seem so extreme to those he considers as less committed to their beliefs?
>>963171
>It would be explainable in a deterministic way, yet no one would be able to explain it perfectly.
?
People can't explain why ants became social insects?
In theory anything that has already happened can be regarded as deterministic so I absolutely cannot understand the point you're trying to make.
>Nigga please, learn evolution, history, biology, geography, and stop taking everything so personally.
No but seriously, do you think it constitutes an evolutionary pressure?
Sure you could argue that if humanity brought about its end through overconsumption, it was an act of evolution. And you wouldn't be wrong. But what pressure is there for humans to change their behavior the potential effects of which won't be present until after the fact?
Do you think humans evolved to be motivated by complex concepts and conclusions instead of direct wants focused on the present? Is this why we're more afraid of terrorism than car accidents?
Did people adapt agriculture because they understood how a stationary society is advantageous to a hunterer-gatherer type, or just because they felt good having guaranteed food at their reach all of the time? Was agriculture motivated by abstract ideas or primal desires?
>>963195
>People can't explain why ants became social insects?
See kin selection and haplodiploid sex determination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplodiploidy
And pic related for the rest of what you were referring to.
>>963019
Immigrants tend to keep their cultures
>>963200
>And pic related for the rest of what you were referring to.
How do these graphs not serve as proof to what I'm claiming?
>>963209
Because we are aware of the trend and can attempt to mitigate the effects?
>>963210
So you're the guy willing to curb population growth and economic progress so that he could deal with his fears of a potential disaster?
Do you realize how unlikely that would be? How are you going to enforce that shit?
People want to fuck. People want to have children. People want to have good stuff. To have their children and spouses have good stuff. People want to indulge in good things. Have good pasttimes, hobbies, vacations. People want to have cars. To eat well. You're gonna deny them all this? You're gonna be able to enforce it? When there are people who won't deny others of the biological imperatives? How are you going to compete? "Look at these graphs?" Are you serious?
>>963226
>Do you realize how unlikely that would be?
It's still better than Transhumanism.
Maybe set up a two child policy? (replacement, not increase)
>>963226
>What is China
>>963227
You can't even prove that the disaster is inevitable so such extreme measures are unlikely to be adopted.
You can't even be sure that people would follow these laws if implemented. As I stated earlier, biological imperatives seem to come before abstract concerns. You can't even stop people from drinking alcohol as observed from the probation era and you're talking about imposing huge restrictions affecting every sphere of someones life?
>>963228
A failed state with a huge looming disaster?
>>963235
At least pretend you're trying.
>>963255
>By what what right do the possibilities of tomorrow rob us of the pursuits of today?
Honestly I could extrapolate, but it is 4:30 am and I would prefer to let this settle as a philosophic disagreement in favor of sleep.
Not who you have been discussing this with, by the way, just the impression I got from your reasoning; wasn't trying to imply that it was invalid. It's too late (early?) for me to try to delve into the nature of risk vs reward on a societal or species wide scale as you guys are now.
>>963300
>By what what right do the possibilities of tomorrow rob us of the pursuits of today?
Not really the gist of what I was saying. I wasn't taking a personal stance in the debate, but merely arguing that whatever happens may not be up to us, whether that be some sort of catastrophe or continued expansion.
I was only arguing that this is the basis of life. Life has altered its surroundings to a great degree and has always expanded whenever it became possible. It is not a conscious action, but merely a reality derived from the nature of things such as various conditions and statistical probabilities. In this way the Western colonization of the Americas is no different from early humans expanding over all of the world, nor indeed from even bacerial life expanding over all the vast reaches of the oceans and later lands.
I am also skepticist towards the fears of an oncoming apocalyptic or whatever catastrophe those who naively think they can control life think is inevitable unless we do so.
These are the same guys who naively think the lack of world wars in our recent history is due to some sort of moral progression. They overstate the importance of thought and are susceptible to all kinds of fallacies concerning the nature of humans and their history. They miss the bigger picture of the rules that guide the ways we think and act.
>nature of risk vs reward on a societal or species wide scale
It isn't as much about the risk vs reward of the current scenario as much as about the risk vs reward of all the previous scenarios combined into shaping the species that is us.
>>963366
These intermittent plays of contraction and expansion are evident in life everywhere, but with emphasizing Murphy's Law in regards to a catastrophe resulting in contraction on some basis of life, one must also assume there will always be a rogue element resulting in that scenario.
I myself can not think of a more rogue element than we ourselves; we are the most specialized factor in life on this planet, and in no way removed from it, consciously or not. You cannot readily dismiss that which sets us apart from all other life forms: self awareness, predictive forethought, and analytical reasoning.
With these tools, you can't just sit here and say "but human nature" when we can calculate the amount of water, food and space everyone needs to live, and calculate the potential disaster a nuclear fallout would bring (which is the real reason we haven't seen another world war).
So if we can predict that it would be more advantageous to contract our economy or populous in preparation for catastrophes or events that are statistically likely (and have a growing probability, mind you), then why not?
The colonists (or rather their rulers) recognized the need for resources to fight for dominance in europe, so they sought them out where preeminent powers did not yet exist. Were they also incapable of preserving resources in times of upheaval, because as living things they could only, unconsciously, pursue expansion?
You seem to think that life's goal is evolution and expansion, but the only way it can do that is by surviving. The risk vs reward of all previous scenarios is null if we hastily or foolishly make a wrong bet assuming that we, or even everything living on this planet with us, will persist in spite of that gamble.
To assume it would never be advantageous to curb expansion, especially in the name of survival, is foolish, and your argument for such seems to reside in "our nature" which sounds like ambiguous copout.
>>963575
>>963366
Sorry when composing my post I wasn't taking into account your remarks on determinism; in which case, our nature is only to expand and consume for the sake of it? And if we go extinct because of something we could have avoided it was just "destined" to happen? Regardless of you admitting life (including human life) shapes what is available around it to persist in this seemingly pointless venture?
I am either on a very different line of reasoning, or you are just a very depressing person..
Multiculturalism doesn't work.
People naturally stick with their own kind. Your own people are more trustworthy than foreigners.
>>962960
multiculturalism should mean diversity in races, religions, and political stances but in most cases it means more blacks and latinos in white areas
>tfw Cajun
>tfw globalization has basically killed our culture
>tfw no one even speaks French anymore
>tfw our identity will probably be erased entirely within my generation
This is the end result of ''multiculturalism''. A homogenous non-culture of consumption.
>>963575
Your first sentence is nonsensical but did you seriously just use Murphy's law for anything other than jokingly refering to bad shit that happened? Because you realize it's not an actual rule, right?
>self awareness
Ants have self awareness.
>predictive forethought
Animals can predict things from experiences.
>analytical reasoning
Certain animals can solve primitive riddles.
So none of it really sets us apart from other life forms. Admittedly, we have these abilities evolved to the highest degree, but that doesn't change the fact these abilities are by no means restricted to only us.
>then why not?
Following the same reasoning, why are we still smoking? Taking drugs? Drinking alcohol? Eating excessively food? Why are we prone to fallacious arguments? Why do we get addicted to non-constructive media forms? Why do we gamble? Why do we so easily become obsessed about things concerning our egos? Why are we so prone to violence? Why does our economy, the smorgasbord of our interactions, allegedly rational and intelligent, behave in accordance to these graphs >>963200 identically reflecting the behaviors of 'intelligent' and incognisant beings alike? Why is it that when our behavior is reduced to statistics were are no different from bacteria?
Maybe, just maybe, because our cognitive abilities are just that; abilities, made possible due to language, allowing us to communicate and conceptualize abstract things, but never having become part of our nature.
Just because we're able to theoretize over how various activities harm our health and shorten our lifespan doesn't mean we're able to refrain from indulging in them. Just because we understand how an unlimited arms race will inevitably lead to perpetually more destructive weapons doesn't mean we stopped advancing nukes.
>>964394
Us knowing how much destruction nukes yield didn't stop us from competing for their production and ownership. Yes, you can argue this competition was driven by abstract thoughts and carefully planned out stratagem as per game theory, but only if I asked what's in the core of game theory we'd get to the main gist of it: nothing we do, regardless of its complexity or sophistication is the product of anything other than our primal desires. Thirst for power, in this case. How can you ignore this fact and argue from the perspective that what we do is the result of some logical thought process and not our primitive selves? Why is it not obvious that our abilities and possibilities are only used as a means to fulfilling our primal desires? They haven't become the main guiding force in our lives, but merely tools to achieving still what we desired before we obtained these said abilities. Regardless of whether or not our abilities have the potential to deconstruct our desires and understand where they originate from and how they aren't the most effective way of conduct, we have proven unable to change ourselves.
>Were they also incapable of preserving resources in times of upheaval
Saving and preserving resources in humans is mostly a reaction towards suffering losses as seen by reduced spending after crises. There is nothing intelligent about it unless you consider pulling back your finger after having burned it an intelligent decision. In many cases such saving is actually harmful to the economy.
And if you say that humans also save things for the future without any apparent losses suffered, to that I reply that it's essentially the same thing but rooted in our indirect experiences (knowledge/instincts) instead of our personal experiences. Squirrels also amass food for winter. Is that a demonstration of intelligence, or of instincts endorsed by evolution?
>>964399
>The risk vs reward of all previous scenarios is null if we hastily or foolishly make a wrong bet
You missed the point. The sum of all previous scenarios is relevant only in the sense that we are the result of them. If it has paid off to gamble and take risks in our past, it is inevitable we do so now. Not because it would make sense, but because our previous successes have determined our current patterns of behavior.
>(which is the real reason we haven't seen another world war)
Oh god how simplistic and naive. I can go on if you want but you seem to be the kinda guy who's unwilling to go deeper beyond the superficial.
>And if we go extinct because of something we could have avoided it was just "destined" to happen?
You do realize that we're essentially just a self replicating chemical reaction, right? One that arises from specific conditions and by its very nature expands "only" as much as the conditions allow for it. Of course the mere existence of this process is enough to change the conditions and so it would not be farfetched to wonder if it is inevitable that life undoes itself, given enough time and insulation from outer dangers. Did you know the first extinction event was caused not by external factors but by the oxigen generated by various bacteria, which was poisonous to most lifeforms back then? What resulted was a massive extinction event that brought with itself an ice age that almost threatened to wipe out the same life forms that produced it. Anaerobic bacteria, once being the dominant life form, were thoroughly wiped out for the exception of extreme locations of very low oxygen levels on the planet. Life almost collectively suicided. Did something you would consider contrary to its interests. But it has none.
>>964403
Life has no purpose and no goal. It just copies itself because obviously only those that copy themselves will last. It doesn't care about anything. It's not 'alive' in the sense we're accustomed to think. To hammer down the point you need to compare life to rust. Though chemically very different, they both have the similarity in that all they do is expand mindlessly for as much as conditions allow it. Humans aren't very different. Life will continue to expand regardless of whether it will doom itself by doing so or not.
>or you are just a very depressing person..
Just of the extremely materialist view.
>>963921
Do you think the Zargon Star Empire will care about your petty short lived culture 10000 years from now?
Shit, they changed languages 4 times in their history in an attempt to improve the efficiency of communication.
is nobody going to reply? my posts took lotsa effort ;_;
>>963921
>This is the end result of ''multiculturalism''.
it's the result of media consumption standardising language, removing dialects and lessening accents; not multiculturalism. No fresh genes are getting into your little wading pool.
>>962960
>what did he mean by this?
What did he mean by this?
