posted
I see what Sol means about 'culture' relating to modern entertainment. I can give you the example of India, which yearly at 'bollywood' (read Bombays hollywood) produces more moveis that its US counterpart. Similarily the Indian music industry churns out more music, they have the advantage of a consolidated market of a billion people to be sure, but they have borrowed strongly from the US when it comes to 90's cinema and music styles. Even though this borrowing has occured the music produced there could never be confused for the US type as the Indians use tradition instruments and language as well as US inputs.
The other thing I've always found hard to come to terms with is the style of cinema and music differ so greatly that if you ask the average Indian to watch a US made movie, they'll sit through it and have a pretty much one word reaction to it. "Crap". Similarily you'll find that an American will react the same way to Bollywood. The styles are just so different it ain't funny. Diversity isn't dead. It's just technologising.
------------------ "Blind faith is the crutch of fools"
posted
I would diagree about science becoming so global. I've recently been reading about the lengths western nations go to in an effort to prevent developing nations from gaining our technology.
IP: Logged
posted
Don't confuse science with its applications. Even during the height of the cold war, western scientists would meet with their Russian counterparts to explore the latest theories regarding stuff. Now, this could hardly be called a free-for-all, but it illustrates that science tends to be an inclusive activity.
------------------ "What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity." -- Camper Van Beethoven
posted
I just love it how transnationals use patents to destroy their competition. As if they invented a herbal cure that has been used for 4000 years. But hell, they turn it into a tablet, patent it, and then sue the pants off of anyone who decides to get it from a source other than them.
------------------ "Blind faith is the crutch of fools"
Orion Syndicate
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
Member # 25
posted
Diversity isn't dead and there's no reason diversity should die or be allowed to die. One of our greatest assets on this Earth is our diversity. What we need now is to learn to accept these differences and carry on with life, and not rubbishing other peoples beliefs all the time.
With regards to the sermon, if he really did say that (I've found it hard to trust the western press these last few years with regards to Islamic matters), then I completely disagree with him. Making a speech like that merely leads to more hatred and mistrust. I have no problem with anyone trying to preserve their own culture, but to promote hatred is wrong. I say this as a Muslim and one of the poeple to whom this message was no doubt directed.
------------------ Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.
posted
I have never claimed cultural diversity to be "dead." I am currently claiming that cultural diversity WILL BE dead in the relatively near future (let's say within 200 years). That is the trend of the last 500 years, and I see no evidence that it will not continue, various and sundry jihads notwithstanding.
To this point, posters to this thread have offered some excellent evidence that the world is CURRENTLY a diverse place. I agree that it is. Only Frank has offered any evidence against the trend toward cultural homogeneity.
------------------ Dane
"Mathematicians have long held that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards would eventually reproduce the collected wisdom of the human race. Now, thanks to the internet, we know this is not true." -- Robert Silensky
posted
Oh, I have to disagree with that, Dane. The reasons behind the differences in our culture are changing, and changing for the better in my opinion, but there will be new reasons. And its a damn good thing at that, as a completely homogenic culture deprives itself of the ability to evolve.
What I see happening, from my admittedly untrained point of view, is a decline in the more superficial aspects of diversity, while the real meat of cultural exchange, the sharing of ideas, will be given a playing field the likes of which has never before been seen. This isn't really anything new, as humanity has always been moving towards more and more complex interactions. City-dwellers can think of and do things that nomads can't. Nation-states, empires...the course of human history can in some ways be viewed as an ever expanding network.
------------------ "What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity." -- Camper Van Beethoven
posted
First, I would agree that nationalism and cultural distinction shouldn't be confused. Is there a transnational equivalent to nationalism that we might refer to as "culturalism," the devotion to the interests of a particular culture or the belief that cultures benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing cultural rather than planetary goals?
Sol, help me understand what you mean: - What were the reasons behind the differences in cultures, and how are those reasons changing? - Can you offer evidence that "a completely homogenic culture deprives itself of the ability to evolve?" - Which aspects of diversity would you classify as "superficial?"
Please keep in mind that I am NOT advocating the amalgamation of all human cultures into a single Human Culture. I am merely postulating that such an amalgamation is underway and furthermore is inevitable, barring some massive technological reversion.
------------------ Dane
"Mathematicians have long held that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards would eventually reproduce the collected wisdom of the human race. Now, thanks to the internet, we know this is not true." -- Robert Silensky
posted
A culture will die when perfectly homogenous because it cannot adapt to new situations. So, either the culture hits something it can't handle, or, far more likely, in that ocean of sameness one person has a new idea which overthrows the whole system, erecting a new one in its place. In either case, the culture is altered or destroyed.
As for the rest of it, I'm unclear on what you want me to explain. Technology tends on the whole to place emphasis on the inherint value of ideas as opposed to their origin. Hence, the old ways of dealing with such cultural differences must be altered as well. For example, Bob Steves can write a book and have it printed on that wacky Gutenburg's device, and I can be exposed to ideas without ever meeting him; an event that might have put a quick halt to my acceptance of his idea due to traditional prejudices. And by this I don't mean sexual or racial ones, specifically, but simply the fact that I am, in a pre-print era, very unlikely to be exposed to information from a great distance away, or from a group different enough from my own. Fast forward a few centuries, and Bob's decendant Steve Steves starts a webpage. The same concept applies, though multiplied by several degrees of simplicity.
In other words, I see a trend seperating the superficial notions we attach to ideas and the ideas themselves, and I cannot help but consider this a good thing.
Or let me give another example. I'm *grunt* and you're *double-grunt*. We have no language, and so our minds are seperated by a gulf that is nearly total. Later, my great times X grandchild and yours, Oog and Badug, meet each other hunting and share a few words over the desirability of local hunting grounds. Ideas are shared. But the scale is limited, because we have a very small radius in which to spread them. So history continues, and people start to gather in villages, and trade with other villages, and build cities, and then comes that next leap in idea technology: the road. Now our ideas can spread over a much larger area. However, since I am not likely to build a nice wide road between my front door and the Rampaging Horde, we've still got some major walls to scale. Extend this to the present day and you see the scope of our ability to share ideas has expanded from *grunt*'s...well, grunts, to Frank's very own web domain. And there is every indication that the trend will continue.
You could almost put it in terms of Hegel's theory of the Absolute, if you were a geekish philosophy student. However, I think we can spare each other that particular "joy".
To sum up, ideas can do more good (And to be fair, more bad, or at least on greater scales.) when the ideas flow as freely as possible.
But I fear I've gotten off track a bit.
------------------ "What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity." -- Camper Van Beethoven
Your ideas on the dissemenation of ideas are interesting, Sol, and I won't refute them. But can you offer proof of your first premise, namely that "a culture will die when perfectly homogenous because it cannot adapt to new situations?" What is there in homogeneity that precludes adaptability?
------------------ Dane
"Mathematicians have long held that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards would eventually reproduce the collected wisdom of the human race. Now, thanks to the internet, we know this is not true." -- Robert Silensky
posted
It's all about adaptability. You've got a culture that learns how to bend in one direction and only one direction to great success. Which is fine, for a time. But when trends change, the culture finds itself bending in a way it hasn't trained itself to bend. And so it breaks.
------------------ "What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity." -- Camper Van Beethoven
Printer-friendly view of this topic
