:D
I mean that even though there could be an incidental nature to 'homogenity' and its relationship to surviving, 'homogenity' could still be a theme here as we try to continue to survive. It's politically contentious (multiculture vs. monoculture), but that's not the question. It's whether 'homogenity' is necessary for long-term 'survival'.
For example, if I got rich through hard work and being thrifty, and wish to maintain that after I am financially secure, do I stop hard work and being thrifty, when those are the behaviours that I pursued to get wealthy in the first place?
I mean the fact that there is, for example, evidence that stable property rights in a society somehow maintain freedom and civility over the long-term, people felt it was necessary to tinker with the model because the desired effects were not being achieved. This is actually felt in Norway, with its ancient property laws, to my knowledge, are still in effect.
There are certain things that do hold us back and do threaten us, but basic traditions seem to indicate that even in the face of prosperity, we don't have many options society-wide.
I suspect that part 3 will be interesting in the regard that people losing focus will lead to disaster. :)
Anyway, as they usually say in financial ads : "past performance does guarantee future results" ;)
I did understand the last part :) But I must say I struggled a little bit to comprehend where you are driving at? Could you elaborate a little bit? I'm really not that bright you see :)
No, I poorly explained it! :)
Another example is running a business (I am not a businessman though ;)). The goal is to make a profit and continue to do. I am going to do a lot of good and bad things to reach that goal. I continue to do good things and reject the bad things. This is, of course, not an easy process, but you learn what works and what doesn't.
When you manage to successfully make a product, it is natural to continue to do the things that you have done to get to the point. You will have to change if the market changes, but I'd presume there is always lots of fundamental things that go into that business a success.
Expanding on the business analogy, there were a lot of department stores in the US that failed in the 20th century because they didn't adapt quick enough.
I think, while remaining flexible, certain things can remain as good fundamental things. Societies in the West are successful but will they adapt well enough?
Ok, I think I get it :) But, let me ask you this: Western societies HAVE adapted and changed and gone through different periods. But we've usually gone forward, except during the dark ages. When there has been too much taxation and stagnation, markets have been freed up, and vise versa. But what do you mean we must try and adapt to at this stage? :) What are our challenges?
Thanks for the resteem btw!
Higher population, globalism, radical monetary policies, collapsing trust, etc. All those things are trying to be solved with a monocultural mentality from our new overlords who try to save us all from ourselves. :) Thankfully, we sit comfortably.
I think though, going back to what this was originally about, 'homogeneity' informs our understanding of trust, if we consider that with a lot of other things.