How many cultures?

[Heloin]

I hope that, as their god, I'll give them the brainpower to make up their own mind. But if I cannot actively enforce cooperation, then I think it would be impossible for any starting condition to guarantee total cooperation, at least as far as humans are concerned.

So I'll just spit out an arbitrarily large number and see what funky stuff happens

While I don’t think there’s a way to reduce conflict probability to absolute zero, you can delay/minimize that probability in some ways

Two ways to approach the hypothetical:

1. Focus on the intrinsic/artistic/ideological value of multiculturalism vs homogeneity (ex viewing linguistic plurality as an inherent capital g Good regardless of effects on conflict)

Or

2. Focus on trying to minimize the probability of conflicts and divisions for as many years as possible and to the greatest extent as believed possible

Neither of those have anything to do with the question at hand.

[The Free Joy State]

Technically, even after a (modern) lobotomy, people are still supposed to be able to feel things -- (formerly, when it was performed with an ice-pick... not so much; they did basically leave people incapable of independent thought).

But, suppose a deity did decide to create humanity incapable of any idea that hadn't been implanted at creation, feeling nothing that had not been ordained, and incapable of truly free-will... would such a creation, designed for none of the species to be sapient (for reason, for independent thought, for new ideas) or even fully sentient, be human beings, as we understand them?

And what kind of God would remove free-will in this way?

Wasn't that the plot to the Lego Movie

Haven't got the foggiest.

I think The Simpsons Game had something like that, though...

I hope that, as their god, I'll give them the brainpower to make up their own mind. But if I cannot actively enforce cooperation, then I think it would be impossible for any starting condition to guarantee total cooperation, at least as far as humans are concerned.

So I'll just spit out an arbitrarily large number and see what funky stuff happens

While I don’t think there’s a way to reduce conflict probability to absolute zero, you can delay/minimize that probability in some ways

Two ways to approach the hypothetical:

1. Focus on the intrinsic/artistic/ideological value of multiculturalism vs homogeneity (ex viewing linguistic plurality as an inherent capital g Good regardless of effects on conflict)

Variety is better: more food choices, more opportunities for cultural understanding, more variety of arts, diversity of ideas and perspectives.

Also, multiculturalism is going to emerge anyway, so why fight it? Any monocultural society will remain so for about one year post-creation. Unless you remove free-will, which is a simply icky idea.

Or

2. Focus on trying to minimize the probability of conflicts and divisions for as many years as possible and to the greatest extent as believed possible

Create people with no concept of in-group/out-group psychology, ethnocentrism or authoritarianism. It will probably grow over time, but it might aid co-operation for a longer period of time.

While I don’t think there’s a way to reduce conflict probability to absolute zero, you can delay/minimize that probability in some ways

Two ways to approach the hypothetical:

1. Focus on the intrinsic/artistic/ideological value of multiculturalism vs homogeneity (ex viewing linguistic plurality as an inherent capital g Good regardless of effects on conflict)

Or

2. Focus on trying to minimize the probability of conflicts and divisions for as many years as possible and to the greatest extent as believed possible

Neither of those have anything to do with the question at hand.

True, but those are the ways IM would prefer us to view the thread. And, for once, I obliged.

[Tsaivao]

While I don’t think there’s a way to reduce conflict probability to absolute zero, you can delay/minimize that probability in some ways

Two ways to approach the hypothetical:

1. Focus on the intrinsic/artistic/ideological value of multiculturalism vs homogeneity (ex viewing linguistic plurality as an inherent capital g Good regardless of effects on conflict)

Or

2. Focus on trying to minimize the probability of conflicts and divisions for as many years as possible and to the greatest extent as believed possible

Neither of those have anything to do with the question at hand.

I have to agree, as it seems that the OP is insinuating that culture (and thereby, cultural differences) are the sole reason for conflict. Both approaches will be worn away by entropy, even as shallow as the premise of "more culture/less culture" as the originally hypothetical would pose could still break down extremely quickly as people become more self-deterministic and scarcity becomes a greater and greater concern.

This would essentially be like asking "How many flavors of ice cream should you put in the cone so that it tastes good without melting into a mush?" The ice cream's gonna melt no matter what flavors you put in there or in what quantity; entropy will win out in the end. Sure, maybe there's some combination of cultural diversity (or lack thereof) that could satisfy these semi-arbitrary requirements, but I guarantee that conflict's going to erupt regardless of whatever noble intentions you have. Without direct intervention, conflict is always going to erupt, and will always erupt for many different reasons that sometimes have little to do with culture.

[Heloin]

Wasn't that the plot to the Lego Movie

Haven't got the foggiest.

I think The Simpsons Game had something like that, though...

Lord President Business was going to glue all the Lego people so they'd be a perfect model. Forever and ever and ever.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

I was thinking of culture in terms of ethnic, religious and linguistic based cultures (ex Korean culture, Punjabi culture)

Is Scandinavian a culture, or are Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian three different cultures? If the latter, how about Jämtlandic or Scanian - those are pretty distinct? How about examples like Croats and Serbs, who speak very similarly but write very differently? Is that one “linguistic culture”?

And some people talk about Christian culture as a religious culture, too, nevermind that it encompasses two billion people of vastly different lifestyles.

And what is ethnicity anyways?

Without a clear and precise definition of what is meant by “culture”, no sensible response can be provided to this question.

Oh, and there’s also the point that multiple people have already raised, which is that cultural convergence/divergence is a thing, so initial conditions don’t matter very much.

[Tsaivao]

I also feel like the poll is inadequate for this, but to be honest I can't think of how to improve is as I find the hypothetical pretty flawed in general

[The Free Joy State]

Neither of those have anything to do with the question at hand.

I have to agree, as it seems that the OP is insinuating that culture (and thereby, cultural differences) are the sole reason for conflict. Both approaches will be worn away by entropy, even as shallow as the premise of "more culture/less culture" as the originally hypothetical would pose could still break down extremely quickly as people become more self-deterministic and scarcity becomes a greater and greater concern.

This would essentially be like asking "How many flavors of ice cream should you put in the cone so that it tastes good without melting into a mush?" The ice cream's gonna melt no matter what flavors you put in there or in what quantity; entropy will win out in the end. Sure, maybe there's some combination of cultural diversity (or lack thereof) that could satisfy these semi-arbitrary requirements, but I guarantee that conflict's going to erupt regardless of whatever noble intentions you have. Without direct intervention, conflict is always going to erupt, and will always erupt for many different reasons that sometimes have little to do with culture.

This is true. Reducing all causes of conflict to culture is a highly flawed model that doesn't consider the full complexity (as the question doesn't consider that, with human nature, schisms are inevitable).

And your point about scarcity reminds me -- aside from removing in-group/out-group psychology (because people can make a group out of anything; that's why violent football riots happen) -- if I was a deity, I'd create a planet where all areas can support life, to prevent scarcity-related war. Also, I wouldn't put any oil in the ground. There, two non-cultural causes of conflict... gone.

[Exxosia]

This one is easy. Homogeneity is the only answer. All multiracial and multicultural forms come out of a singular origin and change over time to suit their environment as they expand. If you start out multiracial and multicultural, you are preempting potential advancement and placing people into an ill-fitting environment, thus predisposing the population to conflict instead of growth.

[Infected Mushroom]

I was thinking of culture in terms of ethnic, religious and linguistic based cultures (ex Korean culture, Punjabi culture)

Is Scandinavian a culture, or are Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian three different cultures? If the latter, how about Jämtlandic or Scanian - those are pretty distinct? How about examples like Croats and Serbs, who speak very similarly but write very differently? Is that one “linguistic culture”?

And some people talk about Christian culture as a religious culture, too, nevermind that it encompasses two billion people of vastly different lifestyles.

And what is ethnicity anyways?

Without a clear and precise definition of what is meant by “culture”, no sensible response can be provided to this question.

Oh, and there’s also the point that multiple people have already raised, which is that cultural convergence/divergence is a thing, so initial conditions don’t matter very much.

I would say they are examples of separate but closely related cultural groups?

By 1 culture imagine for example, all 10 million being Han Chinese... or all 10 million being Anglican English for example (at least at the start)

[Infected Mushroom]

Neither of those have anything to do with the question at hand.

I have to agree, as it seems that the OP is insinuating that culture (and thereby, cultural differences) are the sole reason for conflict. Both approaches will be worn away by entropy, even as shallow as the premise of "more culture/less culture" as the originally hypothetical would pose could still break down extremely quickly as people become more self-deterministic and scarcity becomes a greater and greater concern.

This would essentially be like asking "How many flavors of ice cream should you put in the cone so that it tastes good without melting into a mush?" The ice cream's gonna melt no matter what flavors you put in there or in what quantity; entropy will win out in the end. Sure, maybe there's some combination of cultural diversity (or lack thereof) that could satisfy these semi-arbitrary requirements, but I guarantee that conflict's going to erupt regardless of whatever noble intentions you have. Without direct intervention, conflict is always going to erupt, and will always erupt for many different reasons that sometimes have little to do with culture.

I’m not sure that cultural fragmentation is inevitable; if the starting culture is sufficiently unitary and has an ideology that’s sufficiently adaptable

[The Free Joy State]

I have to agree, as it seems that the OP is insinuating that culture (and thereby, cultural differences) are the sole reason for conflict. Both approaches will be worn away by entropy, even as shallow as the premise of "more culture/less culture" as the originally hypothetical would pose could still break down extremely quickly as people become more self-deterministic and scarcity becomes a greater and greater concern.

This would essentially be like asking "How many flavors of ice cream should you put in the cone so that it tastes good without melting into a mush?" The ice cream's gonna melt no matter what flavors you put in there or in what quantity; entropy will win out in the end. Sure, maybe there's some combination of cultural diversity (or lack thereof) that could satisfy these semi-arbitrary requirements, but I guarantee that conflict's going to erupt regardless of whatever noble intentions you have. Without direct intervention, conflict is always going to erupt, and will always erupt for many different reasons that sometimes have little to do with culture.

I’m not sure that cultural fragmentation is inevitable; if the starting culture is sufficiently unitary and has an ideology that’s sufficiently adaptable

It's inevitable.

As long as people can think, they will find things to disagree about. They will then form schisms around their areas of disagreement. Unless you plan to make the culture so uniform that they are mere interchangeable units, without defining characteristics.

But then, we return to the question: if what you have created lacks the sapience for independent thought and disagreement, is what you have created a human being (which is defined, as a species, by the capacity for sapience)?

[The Blaatschapen]

I'll pick one culture as long as it is Dutch.

Just so that the following joke is still valid.

There are two kinds of people i do not like: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the dutch.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'll pick one culture as long as it is Dutch.

Just so that the following joke is still valid.

There are two kinds of people i do not like: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the dutch.

Do the Dutch always go Dutch at the restaurants?

[The Blaatschapen]

I'll pick one culture as long as it is Dutch.

Just so that the following joke is still valid.

There are two kinds of people i do not like: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the dutch.

Do the Dutch always go Dutch at the restaurants?

We don't go to restaurants, there's a pandemic going on.

[Suriyanakhon]

I'll pick one culture as long as it is Dutch.

Just so that the following joke is still valid.

There are two kinds of people i do not like: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the dutch.

Is it really worth all the splinters from the wooden shoes?

[Engadine Mcdonalds 1997]

I'd have multiple cultures living together in harmony in the same way that Afghanistan is a stable nation, give each cultures both the knowledge and the means to create atomic bombs, and then sit back and... watch the fireworks

[Infected Mushroom]

I'd have multiple cultures living together in harmony in the same way that Afghanistan is a stable nation, give each cultures both the knowledge and the means to create atomic bombs, and then sit back and... watch the fireworks

Why? You don’t like the 10 million creations?

[The Blaatschapen]

I'd have multiple cultures living together in harmony in the same way that Afghanistan is a stable nation, give each cultures both the knowledge and the means to create atomic bombs, and then sit back and... watch the fireworks

Why? You don’t like the 10 million creations?

How many dystopian stories do you know, and how many actual utopian ones?

[Infected Mushroom]

Why? You don’t like the 10 million creations?

How many dystopian stories do you know, and how many actual utopian ones?

A utopian story doesn’t get written because it would often lack the element of Conflict

Stories are mostly about Conflict

[The Two Jerseys]

Why would I want to do that when CK3 just came out?

[Thermodolia]

Easy, infect within them several different ideas on that their ideology is the best and let them have it

I don’t think we want to replicate NSG on Earth 2... right?

Why not?


Seriously as a god why wouldn’t I have some fun with it and make as many cultures as I can to have all the fun. Having a culture that hates the rest for not being pure, while being utter slobs themselves, is great entertainment

[Thermodolia]

This one is easy. Homogeneity is the only answer. All multiracial and multicultural forms come out of a singular origin and change over time to suit their environment as they expand. If you start out multiracial and multicultural, you are preempting potential advancement and placing people into an ill-fitting environment, thus predisposing the population to conflict instead of growth.

But that’s what I want. Conflict is entertaining

[The Two Jerseys]

I don’t think we want to replicate NSG on Earth 2... right?

Why not?


Seriously as a god why wouldn’t I have some fun with it and make as many cultures as I can to have all the fun. Having a culture that hates the rest for not being pure, while being utter slobs themselves, is great entertainment

And sometimes throw a couple lightning bolts to stir the pot when things are slow.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

I don't believe multiculturalism is a good bedrock to build a stable, united civilization upon. Based on my observation the more differences people have the easier it is for them to find excuses to hate one another whenever something goes wrong and the harder it is to get them to move past their differences and accept one another for who they are.

So I gotta go with homogeneity. Peace and love and all that goody shit.

[Nolo gap]

there would be no nation. every living thing its own culture. with one rule, and that is universal consideration.
they would be born knowing consideration is the difference between life being heaven or hell.
emotion would be accepted, but not valued above logic, and consideration would be valued above productivity.
(the closest thing to a nation would be the tribes who build and maintain infrastructure.
although there would be a sort of secret world nation who's sole function would be to protect the rights of everyone to relocate anywhere, as often and for whatever reason they wished. they would nip in the bud any formation of a political structure further reaching or more powerful then the independent consensus of each village)
maybe you could call that one culture or no culture, but really each village would develop its own values and priorities, but not be allowed to prevent anyone from relocating into or out of it, and of course every individual in a village is part of its consensus)
the would not look like humans. each would be so different in appearance from each other as to be practically their own species.
most would have fur and tails and pointy ears, some would in addition of scales and or feathers in different places on their bodies.
they would also value strangeness as a positive thing, and shun the desire of themselves or an any god to be feared.