The Practical Value of Diversity Exceeds Its Symbolic Meaning
In this essay, “diversity” refers to tolerance toward matters of little consequence. Diversity is undoubtedly beneficial: it promotes intellectual progress and technological development. Its fundamental role lies in enabling different ideas to complement one another, thereby fostering innovation. Yet diversity on its own brings no real benefit; rather, it can plunge a community into chaos. The proper place of diversity should be as a margin of flexibility under an inclusive standard. Only through the guidance of standards, combined with the vitality of diversity, can a community move toward a better future.
Since humanity cannot unify its thoughts, diversity necessarily exists. But its true value lies in maintaining the balance of the entire system. Simply put, systemic balance is like ecological balance: each ecological niche interacts with others to ensure smooth functioning. Likewise, the balance of nations and even the world resembles an ecosystem — requiring careful adjustment and avoiding drastic changes. For example, in 1859, twenty-four rabbits introduced from England to Australia multiplied uncontrollably, causing severe ecological invasion and devastating agriculture and land. Applied to nations, the lesson is the same: never, for the sake of temporary impulses, shake the foundations or destroy the entire system.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”
Introducing standards for ideas is okay in the abstract. The Earth is demonstrably round, so Flat Earthers shouldn’t be tolerated. Vaccines are demonstrably safe, so antivaxxers shouldn’t be tolerated. The standards are set by the ruling class though. They’ll inevitably reflect white protestant capitalism and Malthusianism more than they do a naturalistic ecological niche. We saw this with the early 20th century progressive movement that quickly became eugenicist freaks.
Power does indeed influence standards, and I agree with that. But I see this as part of humanity’s process of trial and error. Standards are distorted by power, then challenged, and eventually corrected; this cycle is an inherent attribute of civilizational evolution. No one can know from the outset what the standards of a utopia should be—we can only approach them gradually through continuous trial and error.
