Something else also happens, though, as I have seen: the dunlin also benefits from the plover’s nervousness, and then the plover lets out its warning call, the dunlin also head for the air, where there is safety in both numbers and movement. When they forage together as species, as they often do, the dunlin can feed more effectively, knowing that the plover is keeping watch. The plover’s vigilance acts as an early-warning system for the dunlin, protecting them as well. Together they are stronger, each contributing a skill that the other lacks.
Fourth, the lesson for humanity is obvious. We too need different skills, sensitivities and temperaments if we are to flourish. Some of us may be focused on detail. Others are cautious and alert. Some can take risks, others insist on accountability. We are not all the same, and that difference is not weakness, but strength. It is precisely in the combination of perspectives that safety and resilience are to be found.
The danger arises when we assume that only one type of skill or one form of awareness is valuable in our society. Economists often assume that efficiency is the only factor that matters in our world. Politicians sometimes pretend that boldness is the only virtue of value to them. Businesses insist that profit alone is the measure of success. But that might be as foolish as a flock of dunlin feeding without the benefit of the warning calls of the plovers who might be in amongst their number.
We need the nervous, the cautious, the challengers, the whistleblowers, the questioners. We need those who say “stop and look around” as much as those who press on. Together, we can make a society that is safe, sustainable and just. Alone, any one temperament leaves us exposed.
The plover and the dunlin remind us that diversity of behaviour is not a problem to be solved but a condition for survival. We would do well to remember that, most especially in a world where diversity, equality, and inclusiveness are now seen as enemies of society, when in fact they are the bedrocks on which it is built.
Of course, Spud thinks that markets demand homogeneity and therefore he wants to plan variety. But that’s because Spud is a potato.
“The danger arises when we assume that only one type of skill or one form of awareness is valuable in our society. Economists often assume that efficiency is the only factor that matters in our world.”
“Efficiency” is an outcome, it’s neither a skill or a “form of awareness”. The same applies to “profit”
Plus, we don’t need all skills or “forms of awareness”, we need those that add value and the best method for deciding those that do is the market. There are some exceptions to this where we do want government interventions, for example we typically think that thievery, loitering and murder are skills that are not valuable to society (although that is now being challenged by some parts of the left)
Why is he blathering about birdlife? Are we to suffer Tweetynomics next?
He should be very wary about using cheery old Mother Nature in his arguments, as she is red in tooth and claw. In the natural world, annoying chubby losers tend to get kicked in the tits and left for the worms.
Probably. How many articles about AI has he written? It’s about time for even him to get bored of it and move to something else.
So he’s saying we need to listen to Tommy Robinson’s warnings about them dusky forriners?
That’s the ‘wrong type of diversity’ – I tried using this argument (the idea that diversity of thought is desirable as opposed to uniformity while trying to emulate a 60s Coke commercial) against a very sane chap – old university colleague who works in the public sector (Actuary) – his response in his role as ‘Lead diversity rep’ was that that’s ‘hidden prejudice against the global majority’ – as I say when talking about Murphy, the whole ‘DEI’ ethos reminds me of reading about religious cults. Hopefully we can have a WACO style incident with all the various ‘diversity officers’ at some point
So, we are lectured about the value of diversity of opinion by the Left, which crushes diversity of opinion and values diversity of skin color, sexual preference, etc.
Hmm…
Some (many) go down in the mines, while few (him) stay up and write articles about how the few must get paid better than the many because they’re virtuous.
Or something like that. It’s all about how he justifies being paid lots.
Not sure what the dunlin contributes from this article. Seems to me it is taking protection and food and not giving anything in return.
We are not all the same, and that difference is not weakness, but strength. It is precisely in the combination of perspectives that safety and resilience are to be found.
Will you unblock Tim and allow him to comment on your blog?? So much for the ‘strength of differences’….
The fallacy is in the distribution of labor. Nothing directs who is in what role.