Diversity Is Strength (part 3)
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
Is it, though?
Certainly class- and caste-based systems are popular in our societies — c.f. most of human history. It is true that, biologically, each of us is capable of many things. But there are advantages to be gained from doing fewer things, and doing them well.
We've talked about the strength of diversity, and it is easy to think of this as simply "diversity of individuals." But it is also possible to have non-diverse individuals, and yet have diverse types of individuals. Insects specialize, yes, but there is great diversity to their specializations, and corresponding great strength.
I don't think there has been any final proof as to whether one approach is better. The insects do out-weigh us, after all.
Though in truth, humans do practice specialization, and insects do have individuality.
Surnames like "Potter" or "Carpenter" don't mean much these days, but it wasn't long ago that you would be born into your family line of work. Talking to some Indian friends, I've learned the same concept holds there (depending on the region), and can still today be a good indicator of your profession.
I was born into a family of nuts. Now what?
And that's just considering professions. We also practice selective breeding of the plants and animals around us, our own selves, even our thoughts.
These processes, applied towards a specific purpose for long enough create specialization. Go far enough, and you get banana problems.
Too much inbreeding?
But we wouldn't do it if there weren't advantages. Monoculture does have a short-lived strength. Diversity's is long-term.
↩ Prev
