You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why is Norway so rich? Part 2. Liberalism in Norway, Work ethic and Climate
Nice read. Homogeneity is good until one point: to the point when all people are doing the same mistake and nobody thinks differently. Or if somebody does, the desire to achieve consensus is stronger than the willingness to express different ideas, propose different solutions(group thinking).
I personally think homogeneous societies perform very well in predictable periods but are very vulnerable to unexpected 'black swan' events.
Agree. Societies can start going backwards if they don't have any input. But it's not like Norway has ever been sealed off. We've gotten influence from surrounding countries, and collaborated. As the world gets smaller and closer, influence is easily achievable. I mean..today, I don't need a Japanese dude in Norway to make me sushi. I don't need germans in Norway in order to have a BMW. I don't need to travel or meet great thinkers in person to be influenced..they are on the Internet in some way or form.
Like I said, I'm not against different people or cultures. It could be a benefit, but only if they want to contribute.
One issue is that there is too much bad American TV (specifically, reality shows) on Norwegian channels. Cultural contributions from afar are not always that good. :D
Well, NRK isn't that much better with it's "watch ice melt second for second" :) or teenage shows like "Skam" that turns out to be the biggest talk among adults. I mean, norwegians are in general very dumbed down at this stage. Lacks critical thinking, and suspect that things are going to stay they same, even if the playing field is not level anymore. But I agree, cultural contributions from afar are indeed not always good. Islam is another example.
I fear to think that show is an actual reflection of teenage society in Norway. :P
But, anyway, the US provides reality TV, Norway provides the world black metal!!
Yeah, I'm sure it does :) I have no clue. I've never watched it. But my point was that "Skam" should be what it is - a teenage tv-show, not the talking point of the entire adult nation for months and years - and giving it SO much relevance. It is just so incredibly self-centered and relatively uninteresting. :)
I think 'homogeneity' as a term is not entirely clear. You can say 'ethnically' homogeneous or 'civic' homogeneity. I believe the second one is what you are referring to. On the other hand, the first case might not necessarily apply. 'Ethnically-derived' nations, for the lack of a better term, do and still do have the types of problems that are present in any groupthink society, but we well know that there were trailblazers and philosophers in each of them who did shake up things in those nations, for good or bad, to make it hard to be rigid on the idea that those nations will [fatalistically] end up collapsing as a society because they are too fearful to break consensus.