>>7301355Could you expand your opening point beginning with "The problem we see..." and ending with "understands this strongly."?
The second person throws me off and makes what you are trying to say there a little harder to grasp.
In response to your closing statement, which, using it as a lens to view the rest of your reply, I find it interesting that what seems to be implied is the presence of a monoculture and a "melting pot of ideas".
While my earlier response did make a generalization that implied that culturally speaking, all elements of conquered cultures were annihilated (an implication I overlooked due to the limited character count per comment), I do acknowledge that conquered cultures may still influence those who toppled them.
However, in regards to a singular world order, the finality of globalism, it still faces the issue of establishing a single standard for various groups of people. Not every culture, every sub-society, and individual, can thrive under a dominant culture or a single set of standards.
As I have come to understand, rather than solve the issue of class, racial, gender, and age oriented warfare, a single unity would only transform those open conflicts into internalized struggles, resulting in portions of society being ostracized for being in sharp contrast to one another. Tying this with one of your opening points, while you do make a point that differences result in each group/individual making stereotypes of another, and then possibly going to "war" with them, (I don't intend to sound off-putting, but), your statement fails to recognize that what makes the individual, what gives them the sense of identity and pride of such is the same reason man is proud be distinct from other species: defining differences. Every person is not a blank slate, nor do they share necessities; this is expressed even in biology as different bodies have different biological needs. One set of medicine cannot treat and nourish all bodies.
In my view, why Western culture is at a boiling point is because there are many groups of people, and many individuals, who are different from one another, but who are often treated as if they were all a singular group. While unity of peoples does have its benefits, it ignores the necessities of particular groups; one standard cannot fit all. And, in response to the idea of a universal language, one language cannot grasp all ideas, or express all that can be expressed. Each language has its limits; even a lingua franca cannot fully express certain concepts of one of its consisting tongues.
In summary of this reply, a collection of cultures, peoples, and individuals does not result in a pure melting pot, but a stew in which each culture adds to the broth's taste, but can be still identified and in particular cases can conflict in flavor with other cultures. Thus it is necessary for the order of the world to not be of one bowl of stew but of many dishes, lest it result in indigestion.
