#homogeny

noun

another term for homogeneity (see homogeneous).

Homogeny is useful. Want to produce at scale? Make sure there's only one model of your product so you only have to make it in one size, bulk-buy one set of components, and sell to one demographic. In addition to making physical things easier to produce, homogeny makes ideas easier to sell. A diet that's too wishy-washy isn't likely to capture popular attention, because it doesn't take a firm enough stance. What's better for virality is defining what's right and what's wrong. In an absolute sense. This food is good, this food is bad. Politics are inclined toward the same, as are belief systems, fashion trends, and any number of other 'movements.' If you want to rile people up and make them fans or enemies, draw a line in the sand. There are benefits to homogeny, above and beyond the savings of production at scale. Homogenized societies tend to have an easier time building infrastructure and keeping law, for instance, because the people within their jurisdiction have fewer conflicting ideologies and demographic-based needs. The downside, though, is that homogenized ecosystems are massively imperiled by their lack of diversity. A forest with nothing but pine trees will disappear if a beetle appears that obliterates pines. Farms with just one type of crop are fragile, and require higher upkeep in the shape of fertilizers, pesticides, and tending. Diversified farms and forests are more rugged, with different species providing nutrients for their neighbors and farm-wide defenses against threats. That diversity strengthens ecosystems is a well-known biological premise, yet we often forget this when it comes to accepting ideas that are different from our own. We feel the need to force our lifestyles choices and belief systems on others; our diets and workout plans, our rituals and restrictions, our goals and fears. Diversity strengthens, yet we feel the need to make everyone else just like us. Without consciously thinking about it, many of us believe — or at least act like we believe — the world would be a better place if more people thought and acted like us. I certainly feel that way sometimes. "If only more people were willing to such-and-such," and "If only they could see the world the way I see it." If everyone was like me, though, the entire human population would have a set of homogenized weaknesses and strengths. We'd kick ass at some things, sure, and we'd all speak the same language, both literally and figuratively. We'd sure as hell spend more time and resources exploring space (we're talking about Colin-humanity, remember?). But all of us could be brought down in one fell swoop. One disease that Colin-humanity was prone to, or one latent character flaw could end up dooming everyone. Diverse societies typically needn't worry about one person's weaknesses, one person's character flaws, dooming the species. We have billions of people out there with different weaknesses, different strengths. The belief systems that I dismiss may be the very systems that take us deeper into space than the philosophies I adhere to. Who knows what paths different systems will take, and how the people who follow such systems will interpret them down the line? We needn't try to predict, because we have plenty of balls in the air, which helps us change direction based on evolving circumstances and need. There's nothing wrong with sharing what you believe and 'know' to be true with the world. Doing so can be valuable, actually, so long as you don't try and force your ideas on anyone else, or look down on those who don't see things from your perspective. There's something troubling, though, about our desire for homogeny in everything we do. We all believe the brands we use are better, the language we speak is better, the food we eat is better, the things we do with our time are better, the goals we pursue are better. The truth, though, is that without all these people in the world who disagree with us, we'd be far less capable of securely pursuing our individual interests. Diversity isn't just a political catch-word, it's a biological imperative. Try and keep that in mind the next time you're feeling the need to convert, coerce, or disparage someone else for the divergent path they're taking.

so an acquaintance of mine was tagged in the ALS ice bucket challenge. he did the challenge and whatever, but I noticed something about the people he tagged. he only tagged people who fit the following demographic; chunky, bearded, 30s-middle aged men (effectively, the bears). and that kind of made me sad.

there's a difference between sticking to a group (i.e. GSRM, ethnic or racial group, etc.) because of a safe space that isn't available outside of that group, and just surrounding yourself with those people because it is easier. like, there's a difference between safe spaces and safe-as-in-easy spaces. I think it's important to stick to a group for cultural reasons, for reasons that only that group will ever understand struggles similar to our own, and for safety in numbers. but it's a little sad to me that for something like the ALS challenge, he only felt close enough to homogenous people to tag.

where's the fun in only hanging out with people who are exactly like you? where's the fun with only becoming close with people who think and behave the way you do? at fear of sounding like exoticizing, where's the flavor of life? of course, GSRM, racial/ethnic groups and faith groups aren't the only way we choose to segregate ourselves. I guess that as I start my career in grad school it's a bit upsetting to realize that high school really does never end.