Another essay by Beaver, this time on the subject of multiculturalism:
Different cultures and different languages will think differently, which in turn cause a wealth of ideas to spring forth from humanity. It is thus critical to preserve cultures across the world in order to preserve thought.
However, within one nation, multiculturalism leads to a schism of thought instead. In order for a nation to function, its laws must be in-line with the values of its citizens. If the said values are too disparate, then the laws become ineffective and the nation can no longer function properly.
A multicultural world is a rich world. A multicultural nation is a dysfunctional nation.
Thus we reach a conundrum: Is the unification of mankind impossible? Such a unification would require universal laws, a central management which treats all equally and can somehow represent the values of all. But, as said, this is not possible in a multicultural society; therefore, the unification of mankind would have to pass through the institution of a single, monolithic culture for the entirety of humanity.
However, as discussed, the existence of multiple cultures is all that allows the existence of several different currents of thought. The establishment of a universal culture and language would then be a step backwards in thought, limiting mankind’s potential.
Some solutions might exist, yet there is a better question to be asked: Why should humanity be unified? The answer here is that people believe that it is only through unification that we may achieve peace and end suffering, thus collaborate in the bringing about of a new golden age.
Though peace and ending suffering may be charming ideals, these people fail to understand that it is never in times of peace that humanity has strived, but in times of strife and horror. It is not collaboration and peace which heightens the human spirit, but competition and suffering. One could then argue that the unification of humanity is contrary to the ultimate goal of those good thinkers, namely its elevation.
The idea of ending war however is not without its merits. We have reached a point in human history – nay, we reached it decades ago – where humanity is capable of destroying itself in minutes before it even has a chance to consider the consequences of its actions. Thus, it might be well advised to have a form of collaboration between the nations of the world, even enemy nations, to establish “tenets” of a sort which would aim to prevent the extinction of humanity. These tenets will likely be utterly amoral, and so they should be: Their aim is not morality, but the maintenance of humanity.
Original screen cap: