4 ms·

I mean, it's basically inevitable, isn't it? Cultural heterogeneity is born out of isolation. If two groups of people are in constant contact, they'll never eve

I mean, it's basically inevitable, isn't it? Cultural heterogeneity is born out of isolation. If two groups of people are in constant contact, they'll never ever stop speaking the same language and having the same traditions. Conversely, if two originally distinct cultures start to interact regularly (even more so if closely) they'll eventually merge into one. People are more willing to give up on traditions and cultural norms than to have constant friction with their neighbors.

akira2501 2y ago
> Cultural heterogeneity is born out of isolation. What level of "isolation" forms that threshold though? We're nowhere near a single worldwide religion, for example, which is odd because it's the most existential of cultural beliefs.
- sgu999 2y ago
  > We're nowhere near a single worldwide religion, for example, which is odd because it's the most existential of cultural beliefs. We have neoliberalism, at least
- fluoridation 2y ago
  No level. It's a continuum. The more isolated, the faster the cultures will diverge.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  At least in the West, we have a lot more secularism than ever before.
davidsgk 2y ago
> I mean, it's basically inevitable, isn't it? Cultural heterogeneity is born out of isolation. When thinking about this cynically, I feel like this has some depressing ramifications. Cultural differences (and isolation) are often born from financial disparities as well. Does this mean that the path to global cultural homogeneity is basically just gentrification on a massive scale where economic -> cultural minorities get more and more ostracized?
- itishappy 2y ago
  Trickle down globalism. I think you're onto something.
woodPurchase 2y ago
>People are more willing to give up on traditions and cultural norms than to have constant friction with their neighbors Toshi would tear down his local shrine and import the third world because it's better than having some Judeo-Christian reporters call them names? The cultural and ethnic shifts happening are happening because banks, governments, and CEOs see it as being in their own interest. More working hands, more mouths to feed, more votes for their party. None of it has ever been natural and none of it is to our benefit
- fluoridation 2y ago
  >Toshi would tear down his local shrine and import the third world because it's better than having some Judeo-Christian reporters call them names? He would have if those foreigners were similar in numbers to the Japanese, rather than being a minute minority.
  - woodPurchase 2y ago
    If they were similar in numbers why would it be the Japanese ceding instead of the foreigners? Even if so, it's all the more reason to not let them in in the first place. Keep Japan Japanese for the Japanese
    - fluoridation 2y ago
      It's not a battle, where one side decisively wins over the other. Both cultures cede a bit towards common ground.
      - woodPurchase 2y ago
        I'm not going to say that's untrue, it obviously isn't. But friction, distance, and drift are going to work in the opposite direction The result depends on the ratio. I don't see why we can't have trade and relations with other countries without also assimilating eachother
im3w1l 2y ago
It's not that simple. People in constant contact have in fact maintained separate cultures in some instances. I think what makes it different this time is that we are using science to find the best culture. "How should we behave towards each other for the best possible outcome?" If a certain culture is clearly and demonstrably better, then that will lead to everyone adopting it. Democracy might also be part of it, as in authoritarian states the person in power wield such a an outsized influence that their personal whims and fancies can turn into culture.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  Even separate cultures have converged to a massive degree. For example, most people in the world, nowadays, send their kids to school and use smartphones. And even though Putin, Xi and Western leaders may not be friends, they wear basically the same professional attire. 200 years ago, there would be much fewer common cultural traits.
swatcoder 2y ago
Millenia of stubbornly cosmopolitan cities suggests it's not so inevitable, as does all but the most modern history of Europe, India, and East Asia. These all reflect essentially distinct cultural communities in constant trade and travel for hundreds and hundreds of years. Contact alone isn't enough. Homogenization doesn't seem to happen until either some sweeping administrative body insists on it, or (unique to modernity) a specific culture's media successfully and pervasively inserts itself between people and local/inherited traditions.
- fluoridation 2y ago
  >(unique to modernity) a specific culture's media successfully and pervasively inserts itself between people and local/inherited traditions. So, when there's more cultural exchange and less isolation?
  - swatcoder 2y ago
    I wouldn't call that inevitable, historically precedented, or an exchange. And I don't think the state of cultural interaction in any of those places was meaningfully more isolated before 20th century media arrived. So no.
- Jensson 2y ago
  > These all reflect essentially distinct cultural communities in constant trade and travel for hundreds and hundreds of years Most people didn't leave their local area, the need for a unified language was extremely limited compared to modern society. Dialects developed because interaction was so low, so you could easily hear which part everyone came from, today all of that is evening out over time. Go a few hundred miles and people use different words even if it is the same language and people would have a hard time understanding each other.

akira2501 2y ago

> Cultural heterogeneity is born out of isolation. What level of "isolation" forms that threshold though? We're nowhere near a single worldwide religion, for example, which is odd because it's the most existential of cultural beliefs.

sgu999 2y ago
> We're nowhere near a single worldwide religion, for example, which is odd because it's the most existential of cultural beliefs. We have neoliberalism, at least
fluoridation 2y ago
No level. It's a continuum. The more isolated, the faster the cultures will diverge.
inglor_cz 2y ago
At least in the West, we have a lot more secularism than ever before.

davidsgk 2y ago

> I mean, it's basically inevitable, isn't it? Cultural heterogeneity is born out of isolation. When thinking about this cynically, I feel like this has some depressing ramifications. Cultural differences (and isolation) are often born from financial disparities as well. Does this mean that the path to global cultural homogeneity is basically just gentrification on a massive scale where economic -> cultural minorities get more and more ostracized?

itishappy 2y ago
Trickle down globalism. I think you're onto something.

woodPurchase 2y ago

>People are more willing to give up on traditions and cultural norms than to have constant friction with their neighbors Toshi would tear down his local shrine and import the third world because it's better than having some Judeo-Christian reporters call them names? The cultural and ethnic shifts happening are happening because banks, governments, and CEOs see it as being in their own interest. More working hands, more mouths to feed, more votes for their party. None of it has ever been natural and none of it is to our benefit

fluoridation 2y ago
>Toshi would tear down his local shrine and import the third world because it's better than having some Judeo-Christian reporters call them names? He would have if those foreigners were similar in numbers to the Japanese, rather than being a minute minority.
- woodPurchase 2y ago
  If they were similar in numbers why would it be the Japanese ceding instead of the foreigners? Even if so, it's all the more reason to not let them in in the first place. Keep Japan Japanese for the Japanese
  - fluoridation 2y ago
    It's not a battle, where one side decisively wins over the other. Both cultures cede a bit towards common ground.
    - woodPurchase 2y ago
      I'm not going to say that's untrue, it obviously isn't. But friction, distance, and drift are going to work in the opposite direction The result depends on the ratio. I don't see why we can't have trade and relations with other countries without also assimilating eachother

im3w1l 2y ago

It's not that simple. People in constant contact have in fact maintained separate cultures in some instances. I think what makes it different this time is that we are using science to find the best culture. "How should we behave towards each other for the best possible outcome?" If a certain culture is clearly and demonstrably better, then that will lead to everyone adopting it. Democracy might also be part of it, as in authoritarian states the person in power wield such a an outsized influence that their personal whims and fancies can turn into culture.

inglor_cz 2y ago
Even separate cultures have converged to a massive degree. For example, most people in the world, nowadays, send their kids to school and use smartphones. And even though Putin, Xi and Western leaders may not be friends, they wear basically the same professional attire. 200 years ago, there would be much fewer common cultural traits.

swatcoder 2y ago

Millenia of stubbornly cosmopolitan cities suggests it's not so inevitable, as does all but the most modern history of Europe, India, and East Asia. These all reflect essentially distinct cultural communities in constant trade and travel for hundreds and hundreds of years. Contact alone isn't enough. Homogenization doesn't seem to happen until either some sweeping administrative body insists on it, or (unique to modernity) a specific culture's media successfully and pervasively inserts itself between people and local/inherited traditions.

fluoridation 2y ago
>(unique to modernity) a specific culture's media successfully and pervasively inserts itself between people and local/inherited traditions. So, when there's more cultural exchange and less isolation?
- swatcoder 2y ago
  I wouldn't call that inevitable, historically precedented, or an exchange. And I don't think the state of cultural interaction in any of those places was meaningfully more isolated before 20th century media arrived. So no.
Jensson 2y ago
> These all reflect essentially distinct cultural communities in constant trade and travel for hundreds and hundreds of years Most people didn't leave their local area, the need for a unified language was extremely limited compared to modern society. Dialects developed because interaction was so low, so you could easily hear which part everyone came from, today all of that is evening out over time. Go a few hundred miles and people use different words even if it is the same language and people would have a hard time understanding each other.