This is what I was really talking about. The key to viable and successful diversity is the willingness of various groups to honestly listen to each other and rationally consider others' views, and reconsider their own, when warranted. In this kind of society there is a high likelihood that the best ideas and solutions will eventually bubble or float up to the top like the cream in milk. Of course it will not work if each of the diverse groups stubbornly insist that only their way is best, and refuses to even look at what others have to offer. In a scenario like that, I agree that diversity will be more of a detriment than an asset. Agreement on things like AGW and environment will inevitably be achieved if most people commit to honestly seeking and yielding to the inexorable demands of all the best available empirical, scientific evidence.Themis wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 4:34 amWe succeed by working together and getting along even though we may have a number of differences. The problem with Ajaxland is not that it would have little diversity, It is their attitudes and actions toward those who do not look like them, think like them, or do as they demand.
It should always be possible to come to a unity of opinion on what empirically works best on the really important life or death and health and environmental issues, and still be beautifully enriched by diversity in more subjective issues like art, literature, music, culinary preferences, etc.