status quo assumed preferable

[Flint]

"PS Wanna hear my joke, yet?"
@marichiko: Sorry, your joke request got lost in the shuffle. Fire away.

"some people naturally understand the ebb and flow of things. some don't."
@lumberjim: Agreed. Observations of that particular phenomenon are quite interesting, but, to me, not quite as interesting as observing an individuals knowlegde, or lack, of the "ebb and flow of things" on the interior side of their interface with the world. It is at that critical point where the individual's perceptions can become skewed, yet it is that same critical point which we, as observers, are lacking in direct knowledge, and therefore where our own perceptions can become skewed. All things being relative, we have to admit that all any person has to go on are their own skewed perceptions.

"If society could agree on a common goal doesn't that imply that it isn't diverse which renders the goal of eliminating diversity kind of moot?"
@Beetsie: Clever. I like that. You revealed an internal paradox to my hypothetical query which did, in fact, render it "moot" if taken at face value. I tried to get it out in as few words as possible, as generically as possible, and in avoiding interpretable specifics I shot myself in the semantic foot.

"Complete uniformity is undesireable. Complete anarchy is equally undesireable. Either state is out of balance, so society is always somewhere in between...or so I hope."
@Elspode: Refered to in nature as homeostasis. There is homeostasis within cells, multi-cellular organisms, and also, as you point out, in multi-organism collectives. The two states you describe remind me of one of the driving forces in my life, which is to nullify, to the highest degree possible, the level of inevitable chaos by over-reaching for an impossible to atain level of logical order, the result of which turns out to be somewhere in the middle. An example, or application, of this would be reducing the amount of mental stressors by catagorizing, simplifying, and dealing with compartmentalized factors as opposed to overwhelming individual details. You get a less fine-tuning but more big-picture. And, I don't think I should have to specify this, but human beings should always be dealt with as individual details. The act of catagorizing humans into groups with defined characteristics is one of the uglier aspects of bigotry.

"I think before anyone can answer that for you , you might answer it for yourself first."
@skysidhe: I assumed the answer would be percieved as implied. I'll give you three guesses.