6 ms·

"There are efficiencies you can gain by having a monoculture. Nobody has to lock their bikes, subways can have nice cloth seats and you can walk around in any n

by mapgrep 16y ago

"There are efficiencies you can gain by having a monoculture. Nobody has to lock their bikes, subways can have nice cloth seats and you can walk around in any neighborhood and be safe." Bangladesh is 98% ethnic Bengali; you can read about their crime here http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1011.html#crime http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1011.html#c... ("U.S. citizens should avoid walking alone after dark, carrying large sums of money, or wearing expensive jewelry"). Lesotho is 99.7 percent Basotho, with an intentional homicide rate seven times higher than the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona... Meanwhile, Singapore, split between large numbers of Chinese, Malays and Indians is one of the safest places in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Singapore). Also safe is Switzerland, which is so ethnically diverse there are three official languages, each widely spoken within the country. (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1034.html#crime http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1034.html#c...) .

po 16y ago
Please note that I'm not saying all monocultures are safe. I am certainly also not saying multi-cultures are unsuccessful. This has nothing to do with safety or success, more efficiency gains and tolerance costs. I'm trying to raise a nuanced point and I went out of my way to say neither is better than the other. I think the efficiency gained depends on the culture gaining it. Japan has decided that they value safety. In Bangladesh there are probably different assumptions you can make. I don't know what they are and I don't want to speculate because I don't have any experience living there. edit: also wanted to add... even though Switzerland is ethnically diverse and speaks many different languages, I would still call it a mono-culture. The swiss are also sometimes criticized for being unique in their ways and resistant to change. Culture is not the same as race or language.
- mapgrep 16y ago
  "Please note that I'm not saying all monocultures are safe." Sure, but you attributed safety and other "efficiencies" in Japan to "monoculture." You also wrote, "Multiculturalism means lowest common denominator." Now you seem to be attributing safety in Japan not to monoculture but to /Japanese/ culture. Fair enough. In that case, what would happen if 10 million Japanese moved to Bangladesh, making it more multicultural? Would it be a less "efficient" culture? Would it be anchored by the "lowest common denominator," or would the nation improve through the infusion of new cultural values? It seems doubtful that, after conducting this thought experiment, most people could honestly conclude that, "Multiculturalism means lowest common denominator." It likewise seems hard to imagine Singapore in its present state -- including efficiency-wise -- if all those ethnic Chinese has never migrated there. The big context here is that you were defending Japan against criticism that it is a "closed off culture" and "too exclusive, too slow to change." That criticism is very well earned; for all its many virtues, there is a disturbing level of racism in Japan, against Koreans and Americans of black heritage (usually in military service there but not always, see http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101880815-149882,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101880815-...). There is also the matter of Japan's depressingly extended economic stagnation, going on 20 years old now, which is widely and credibly explained as being closely tied to an unwillingness to embrace new, often foreign values around business, corporate culture, risk taking, credit and competition. The one time I visited Japan, for two weeks, I conjured many positive words to describe the country. "Efficient" was not one of them. The grueling, sit-at-your desk 14 hour workdays that are de rigueur in Japan are not particularly efficient. The make-work jobs everywhere also seemed inefficient, like the guy in a uniform bowing in apology non-stop to people driving by a construction detour in the road, or the full time ticket taker/thanker in the back of the bus who collected my payment stub. The many ritual greetings and apologies also did not seem efficient. I have a hard time seeing how multiculturalism would not ENHANCE Japan's efficiency -- and economy. Update: "The swiss are also sometimes criticized for being unique in their ways and resistant to change. Culture is not the same as race or language." In that case, Brooklyn is a monoculture of New Yorkers, or Americans, and your original distinction between it and Japan is rather meaningless.
  - po 16y ago
    Now you seem to be attributing safety in Japan not to monoculture but to /Japanese/ culture. Fair enough. Yes I wasn't careful enough in my writing. I mean to say that monoculture allows you to optimize around your values. Lowest common denominator sounds too judgmental but I mean it in the set-theory kind of way. I probably should just have said "common values". what would happen if 10 million Japanese moved to Bangladesh, making it more multicultural? Would it be a less "efficient" culture? Yes, I think there would be certain generalizations that you could no longer depend on being true. I don't know what they would be. Maybe it would be better, maybe worse. Maybe it would be you would have to order a wider variety of food at your wedding to make everyone happy. I don't know. I would say that's a reduction in efficiency. I am aware of racism here and I don't think it's good. I don't think Japanese companies are economically efficient but they pretty good at reflecting Japanese values. I eat a restricted diet and it's an inconvenience that people assume that I just eat the standard issue Japanese cuisine. A lot of people complain about that but I understand why it is that way. I don't see what is so controversial about what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that having to always be tolerant for the way other people do things trades something off compared to living where everyone already does things mostly the way you would.
    - mapgrep 16y ago
      I think I grok your meaning of "efficiency" now; I'm definitely not suggesting you are an intolerant person. I would politely challenge, however, the idea that there's roughly equal virtue between Brooklyn-style embraced diversity vs Japan-style conformity. Not only does multiculturalism have a genuine moral attractiveness, which should not be dismissed, it makes for a stronger, more resilient country over the long term. Fresh ideas, fresh values, fresh labor, fresh taxpayers, fresh consumers, fresh inventors and indeed fresh culture are stengths that have been indispensable in allowing the U.S. to overcome its many deep (and often chronic) flaws and attain the level of economic and cultural success that it has. Similarly, a tendency toward xenophobia has hampered Japan's many intrinsic strengths, which have nevertheless been strong enough to set the country as an (oft misinterpreted) example of How To Win. TLDR: Monoculture is a harmful, false optimization at the national level (though quite useful within, say, an apartment, church or startup incubator).
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
bad_user 16y ago
I can confirm about Switzerland. When I visited Zurich a couple of years ago I saw things unimaginable for my city, like people leaving their unchained bikes outside their apartment buildings.
- vacri 16y ago
  Ah, but were they their own bikes? :)
aschobel 16y ago
We actually have four national languages: German (64%), Italian (7%), French(20%), and Romansh (<1%). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Switzerland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Switzerland
radu_floricica 16y ago
The parent meant you _can_ do a lot more in a monoculture, not that having one automatically means higher civilization. Your examples look a lot like shooting a straw man... if he had said monocultures always imply civilization, his argument would be dead right now.

by mapgrep 16y ago

po 16y ago

Please note that I'm not saying all monocultures are safe. I am certainly also not saying multi-cultures are unsuccessful. This has nothing to do with safety or success, more efficiency gains and tolerance costs. I'm trying to raise a nuanced point and I went out of my way to say neither is better than the other. I think the efficiency gained depends on the culture gaining it. Japan has decided that they value safety. In Bangladesh there are probably different assumptions you can make. I don't know what they are and I don't want to speculate because I don't have any experience living there. edit: also wanted to add... even though Switzerland is ethnically diverse and speaks many different languages, I would still call it a mono-culture. The swiss are also sometimes criticized for being unique in their ways and resistant to change. Culture is not the same as race or language.

mapgrep 16y ago
"Please note that I'm not saying all monocultures are safe." Sure, but you attributed safety and other "efficiencies" in Japan to "monoculture." You also wrote, "Multiculturalism means lowest common denominator." Now you seem to be attributing safety in Japan not to monoculture but to /Japanese/ culture. Fair enough. In that case, what would happen if 10 million Japanese moved to Bangladesh, making it more multicultural? Would it be a less "efficient" culture? Would it be anchored by the "lowest common denominator," or would the nation improve through the infusion of new cultural values? It seems doubtful that, after conducting this thought experiment, most people could honestly conclude that, "Multiculturalism means lowest common denominator." It likewise seems hard to imagine Singapore in its present state -- including efficiency-wise -- if all those ethnic Chinese has never migrated there. The big context here is that you were defending Japan against criticism that it is a "closed off culture" and "too exclusive, too slow to change." That criticism is very well earned; for all its many virtues, there is a disturbing level of racism in Japan, against Koreans and Americans of black heritage (usually in military service there but not always, see http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101880815-149882,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101880815-...). There is also the matter of Japan's depressingly extended economic stagnation, going on 20 years old now, which is widely and credibly explained as being closely tied to an unwillingness to embrace new, often foreign values around business, corporate culture, risk taking, credit and competition. The one time I visited Japan, for two weeks, I conjured many positive words to describe the country. "Efficient" was not one of them. The grueling, sit-at-your desk 14 hour workdays that are de rigueur in Japan are not particularly efficient. The make-work jobs everywhere also seemed inefficient, like the guy in a uniform bowing in apology non-stop to people driving by a construction detour in the road, or the full time ticket taker/thanker in the back of the bus who collected my payment stub. The many ritual greetings and apologies also did not seem efficient. I have a hard time seeing how multiculturalism would not ENHANCE Japan's efficiency -- and economy. Update: "The swiss are also sometimes criticized for being unique in their ways and resistant to change. Culture is not the same as race or language." In that case, Brooklyn is a monoculture of New Yorkers, or Americans, and your original distinction between it and Japan is rather meaningless.
- po 16y ago
  Now you seem to be attributing safety in Japan not to monoculture but to /Japanese/ culture. Fair enough. Yes I wasn't careful enough in my writing. I mean to say that monoculture allows you to optimize around your values. Lowest common denominator sounds too judgmental but I mean it in the set-theory kind of way. I probably should just have said "common values". what would happen if 10 million Japanese moved to Bangladesh, making it more multicultural? Would it be a less "efficient" culture? Yes, I think there would be certain generalizations that you could no longer depend on being true. I don't know what they would be. Maybe it would be better, maybe worse. Maybe it would be you would have to order a wider variety of food at your wedding to make everyone happy. I don't know. I would say that's a reduction in efficiency. I am aware of racism here and I don't think it's good. I don't think Japanese companies are economically efficient but they pretty good at reflecting Japanese values. I eat a restricted diet and it's an inconvenience that people assume that I just eat the standard issue Japanese cuisine. A lot of people complain about that but I understand why it is that way. I don't see what is so controversial about what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that having to always be tolerant for the way other people do things trades something off compared to living where everyone already does things mostly the way you would.
  - mapgrep 16y ago
    I think I grok your meaning of "efficiency" now; I'm definitely not suggesting you are an intolerant person. I would politely challenge, however, the idea that there's roughly equal virtue between Brooklyn-style embraced diversity vs Japan-style conformity. Not only does multiculturalism have a genuine moral attractiveness, which should not be dismissed, it makes for a stronger, more resilient country over the long term. Fresh ideas, fresh values, fresh labor, fresh taxpayers, fresh consumers, fresh inventors and indeed fresh culture are stengths that have been indispensable in allowing the U.S. to overcome its many deep (and often chronic) flaws and attain the level of economic and cultural success that it has. Similarly, a tendency toward xenophobia has hampered Japan's many intrinsic strengths, which have nevertheless been strong enough to set the country as an (oft misinterpreted) example of How To Win. TLDR: Monoculture is a harmful, false optimization at the national level (though quite useful within, say, an apartment, church or startup incubator).
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

bad_user 16y ago

I can confirm about Switzerland. When I visited Zurich a couple of years ago I saw things unimaginable for my city, like people leaving their unchained bikes outside their apartment buildings.

vacri 16y ago
Ah, but were they their own bikes? :)

aschobel 16y ago

We actually have four national languages: German (64%), Italian (7%), French(20%), and Romansh (<1%). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Switzerland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Switzerland

radu_floricica 16y ago

The parent meant you _can_ do a lot more in a monoculture, not that having one automatically means higher civilization. Your examples look a lot like shooting a straw man... if he had said monocultures always imply civilization, his argument would be dead right now.