Vegetarians would like to see a world where no one eats meat. At least some feminists would like to see a world where men and women are essentially the same except for outward appearance. Conservatives think liberalism is wrong and vice versa.
Many people would like to stamp out capital punishment worldwide. Some people feel that everyone should be nice and politically correct at all times and never be angry or rude. Some people say that no one every should tell a lie; others think lying can be good sometimes. Some people think everyone should be (fill in the religion); on the other side are atheists like us.
Now, imagine a homogenized world. Everyone under the same laws. Believing the same things. Everyone having exactly the same rights and responsibilities. The same limitations and the same opportunities. And everyone's happy with it, including you.
Standing back from this world, would this be a good world or would there be something fundamentally flawed or wrong or dysfunctional with it?
Standing back from this world
Sounds like a sort of meta-reality to me!
This reminds me of the Matrix, and the machine versions of a human utopia where everything was blissful and perfect were not accepted by humans. Only when they included our misery and suffering were they successfull in pacifying us.
To answer your question I also think it would be a bad thing for everyone to agree on everything. That being said I don't believe that is the world we are striving for in any manner. I think our utopia is to maximize personal liberty along with just being protected from one another. And wouldn't you know it, getting rid of religion would be a great place to start for achieving this. Throw in ending world hunger and we are just about there.
Me too, I was gonna post something similar. And hopefully we to rise above having to be protected at all. I can imagine it.
The bell-shaped curve suggests there will always be some from whom others need to be protected, sadly.
Unless we can shift the whole curve, or sharpen it up enough. Not holding my breath.
Well, I think a lot of us have a secret agenda. On the one hand, we want to honor diversity, but on the other hand we want other cultures to toe the line on various issues: rights issues, behavior issues, belief issues, etc.
Absolutely, except it's no secret. I know the kind of world I would more like to live in and I am working on it best I can. It would be more in line to my thinking on a few particular subjects (you can probably guess at least one) but no where near homogenous.
Basically, we want people in other cultures to wear their native costumes, cook their native foods, but otherwise to be pretty much liberal Americans underneath.
Yes, a homogenized world, where everyone is a steriotype, but only drink blue Bubble-up! Can I still have good ethnic currys?
Are 'getting rid of religion', and 'ending world hunger', related at some dependent level. Like 'Soylent Green'?
But speaking to your greater point, the Earth itself is not homogenized and to a great extent, cannot be. Why are real estate prices along a lakefront so much more than in nearby land-bound areas? Because it is a limited resource, there is only so much beach. Since there is a limit to how many people can enjoy it, there is an entire value structure built into just the concept of where and how you live. Some feel that the reach for beachfront property (feel free to substitute anything you might want to live nearby, or away from) is worth additional efforts, some feel that people are crazy for paying more just for a view.
Since our entire world is made up of limited resources, there is little any systemic structure can do to make things equal. Without equality you have difference, with difference you have the seed corn for dismay, tyranny, and revolt. Democracy and to a great extent capitalism have added other potential results, inspiration and entrepreneurism. So in the end, homogenization is a Unicorn.
But let me speak to your greater, greater point; what does it matter if we are rude or not PC or not conforming to generally agreed on behavior? Heinlein has a somewhat appropriate quote on that: "Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together". For any of us who have opinions that do not really matter to policy or how others are able to live and thrive, rudeness and PCness and lying may not really have an effect in the end. The moment you speak for someone else, or do have an effect on someones life, it matters.