Atithee wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:56 pm
I think this is hard to answer. And, of course, it is opinions. I believe diversity at workplace helps, because it encourages creativity and together we end up with a far better solution than any of us alone.
Depends on the
type of workplace and what
type of diversity. If it is a mine, factory, construction site, plumbing, electrician work, firefighting, special forces soldiers, civil engineering, some technology development, harvesting fruit, working in a paddy field, herding cattle on a ranch, garbage pickup, sanitation/water works – then I don’t think gender/racial/theological diversity adds any value. But in advertising, entertainment, governance, policing, nursing etc. gender/racial/diversity MAY be an advantage. But advantage how? Post World War 2 there was a massive economic boom in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan etc. Most of the company leadership and boards of directors were white male. Didn’t seem to be a hindrance to economic growth.
Which then raises the question – what does
“reach the lofty heights it is capable of reaching” really mean? Is it just economic growth? Equitable distribution of wealth for every single person on Earth? Peace on Earth? Ecological sustainability?
Or Is it some utopia where all of human hierarchy of needs are satisfied without any damage to the environment, extinction of species, exploitation of the underprivileged and conflict between peoples?
Atithee wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:56 pm
The diversity of religion, culture, customs, etc., just creates discord and kills creativity. My belief is that China, Korea, and
many other south Asian countries are developing faster than us because there is a level of homogeneity, which encourages nation first, rather than region/subset first.
You may be right on this (except which South Asian country is developing faster than India?_. But then look at what Communism tries to achieve – uniformity by the suppression of diversity and individuality. Has not proved to be a successful model in the long run. Again is “developing faster” the only measure of success of a society?
Atithee wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:56 pm
For example, we are fighting to create more and more states and then argue over water rights etc.
I’m not sure why Telanagana and AP had to be split, for example. Two governments means two huge bureaucracies for some small probable gains, which could also have been achieved as one more easily at a lower cost.
Telangana was formed for one simple reason – so that KCR can get so stinking rich that all the perfume in the world can’t mask the scent of that Kachara.
prasen9 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:02 am
I think too much diversity can be bad and too little can be bad too. What is the optimal organizing principle?
Optimal diversity is an interesting concept. But diversity of what? Diversity of genitalia? Diversity of skin colour? Diversity of height? Diversity of weight? Diversity of age? Diversity of visual impariment? Diversity of hearing impairment? Diversity of diet? Diversity of religious belief? Diversity of follicular growth? Diversity of country of origin? Diversity of mother tongue? Diversity of accent (aural minority)? Diversity of education (including illiteracy)? Diversity of financial status? Diversity of IQ?
Diversity of ideas may be what matters most. All the other attribute-based diversity (physical/mental/religious/racial/linguistic etc. etc. )might just be more hindrance and distraction to progress, as Atithee says.
So what does this mean to the imposition of Hindi officially and unofficially?