Individual diversity improves the ability of a population to adapt?

[ygolo]

"Diversity in the characteristics of individuals makes it more likely that a population will be able to adapt to changing environments."

How would you interpret the above statement?

Do you believe it is true in as abstract a form as I have stated it?

What are the implications?

 

[UniqueMixture]

I agree. i actually think it is the reason that "higher order" genetic patterns exist in spite of the fact that they are not individually beneficial (for example genetic disorders such as down syndrome, behaviors such as altruism, or being gay). I think the human race has largely been trapped in a very tight interaction matrix for hundreds of thousands of years. Now, as the number of ways to interact has increased, we are just beginning to evolve new patterns that will allow a more sustainable progression fitting for the larger universe we now realize we inhabit.

 

[KDude]

I don't know why.. but the first thing I thought of was Elvis. Elvis, by today's standards, is pretty "normal" and mainstream. When he was young though, he was an oddball. As a teen, he apparently got strange looks, in the same way someone like Prince gets them today. Elvis' favorite colors were pink and black.. already different enough. But he went across town in downtown Memphis, where all the pimps shopped, and got his clothes there. He bypassed the typical cropped or buzzed hair of the day and grew it out. He was a big fan of the comic book character Captain Marvel.. he wanted his bangs to dangle like Captain Marvel. He played a bunch of hootenanny country mixed with African American blues, and wanted to sound like Dean Martin. He was not a normal kid in school. But now, everyone sees the things Elvis did as a more or less common now.

Fast forward to the early 70s. There was a story from Elvis' girlfriend at the time.. she said they were watching some music show, and some glam rock band came on. I don't know who it was, but there was a lot of bands dolling it up by then. He turned to his girlfriend and kind of facepalmed.. "Did I cause this?" At that point, even he couldn't adapt. But culture as a whole did. Elvis himself died not long afterwards.

Anyways, if you just mean genetics, I don't know what to say. I think this one guy ushered in a lot cultural diversity/expression/openmindedness what have you.

 

[Lookin4theBestNU]

I currently facilitate workshops based on the acceptance as well as the benefits of diversity. All too often though, it seems that people look mainly at race or gender when they think of 'diversity'. There are many significant factors which demonstrate diversity which can go unrecognized as 'diversity'. For instance, I recently pointed out to my supervisor that, whether or not she is aware of it, she hires & promotes Guardians/SJ types almost exclusively which can affect the dynamics of her district team of managers. This kind of example relates in part to the OP question.

The interpretation of this diversity statement from my perspective then is that 'group think' is a hazard to avoid if progress or environmental adaptation is what you are seeking. The implications to me would be to see where our natural biases are on a personal level as well as an environmental/group level to help overcome them. If you fail to incorporate 'outsiders' you will have tunnel vision and lose a big picture perspective. To adapt successfully to an ever-changing environment, you must be aware of all (or at least most) of the contributing factors that make it up. Awareness of biases is more important than the elimination of them from my point of view. People are going to have them regardless of whether or not they want them. It is not necessarily wrong to have them even though many people think that is true. Individuals' lives are made up of experiences which contributes to the development of personal biases and this cannot be changed. However, behavior towards them can be changed if awareness is present. This is what inclusion of diversity is really all about to me.

 

[Society]

"Diversity in the characteristics of individuals makes it more likely that a population will be able to adapt to changing environments."

How would you interpret the above statement?

Do you believe it is true in as abstract a form as I have stated it?

What are the implications?

the most direct meaning of it does not target necessarily humans, social or even complex life. its simply a matter of probability:
the more mutations you have in a genepool the higher the chance that a certain combination of those will be beneficial to you, whether it is on a persistent level (such as faster/stronger/smarter), or that it happens to be that when climate change hits and you might need to migrate to the desert or whatnot, you'll have a higher chance that someone in the tribe will have a good adaptation for that environment and will parent your tribe's way into a better adapt species to function well within that environment (it helps that climate change is usually more gradual).

this can be with humans, fish, plants, bacteria, anything really.

 

[KDude]

What the hell are you guys talking about? What is meant by diversity exactly? Genepools, workplaces.. ?? I should've have never mentioned Elvis. lmao

 

[Lark]

"Diversity in the characteristics of individuals makes it more likely that a population will be able to adapt to changing environments."

How would you interpret the above statement?

Do you believe it is true in as abstract a form as I have stated it?

What are the implications?

Monocultures fail.

That's how I interpret it.

 

[Rail Tracer]

"Diversity in the characteristics of individuals makes it more likely that a population will be able to adapt to changing environments."

How would you interpret the above statement?

Do you believe it is true in as abstract a form as I have stated it?

What are the implications?

The more difference, the better the survivability when it happens that the gene is needed. Also known as diversifying your eggs by not putting them all in one basket. I saw the quote in quite a few ways. But the way I interpreted is that diversifying=good for you whether it is culturally speaking, gene speaking, or money speaking(pushing it a bit.)

There is a specific butterfly (I can't remember the name of it) who had two colors. One was white while the other was black. Before the Industrial Revolution (and by extension, lots of smog) took place, the white butterfly was dominant because they were better at hiding from would-be predators.

Fast-forward decades after the Industrial Revolution, the white butterflies began declining and the black butterflies started mating rapidly due to survivability in the new, smog-induced, environment.

Likewise, there are many gene mutations we have right now that helps us in certain environments. Sickle-Cell Gene is one of those examples. In the case of catching Malaria, those who have the Sickle-Cell Gene (whether one or both are present) can better survive than those that don't. In Malaria stricken areas, the Sickle-Cell gene can better survive than not having it at all. While it isn't particularly helpful in other regions, it is definitely useful in the regions that need it.

 

[ygolo]

What the hell are you guys talking about? What is meant by diversity exactly? Genepools, workplaces.. ?? I should've have never mentioned Elvis. lmao

It could be anything. I made the statement abstract enough to apply to any population of individuals.

 

[ilikeitlikethat]

Diversity's good, it adds to the gene pool

 

[sprinkles]

I like to look at it another way.

If you have a box full of different tools, and you need to solve a random problem, if you have a lot of different tools then it's more likely that one of them will be useful.

If all you have is a hammer then everything starts to look like a nail, but there will be an increase of problems that can't be dealt with.