Without cholesterol you die. Cholesterol plays an important role in making and repairing cell membranes. Your body makes cholesterol because you need it.

On the other hand too much cholesterol, and especially too much cholesterol of the wrong type, can make you sick. Specifically, too much “bad” cholesterol can cause INFLAMMATION.

I have no doubt that all societies need a measure of diversity. Societies that are intolerant of dissent – in other words societies that do not allow any diversity of thought – stagnate and die. The poster boy for this thesis is the late unlamented (by me at least) Soviet Union.

We need to hear diverse opinions. We need to see diverse cultures. If we don’t our society become inward looking and smug. It loses all dynamism, all capacity to EVOLVE. Ultimately such societies just rot away.

But can there be such a thing as too much diversity? And can there be bad diversity as there is bad cholesterol?

Can too much diversity cause INFLAMMATION that harms the nation?

I am a Jew and an immigrant. For such as me it may appear hypocritical not to mention dangerous to raise this issue. I also realize that measuring and defining “diversity” is difficult.

Nonetheless I think this is an issue that should be examined.

Is diversity ALWAYS a cause for “celebration”?

Is there an OPTIMUM LEVEL of diversity just as there is an optimum level of, say, taxation?

Is there “bad” diversity as well as “good” diversity?

I’m interested to see what OLO posters have to say.

What a highly intriguing analogy you have chosen, stevenlmeyer.

>>Specifically, too much “bad” cholesterol can cause INFLAMMATION.<<

Well, not exactly.

Inflammation can be caused by a multiplicity of factors, among them, stress, smoking, viruses, trans fats, an imbalance of omega-6 to omega-3 fats, excess refined sugars etc.

Cholesterol can - and does - exacerbate the symptoms.

http://www.health.com/health/condition-article/0,,20232652,00.html

But it does not explain why almost half of all heart attacks occur in people with "normal" cholesterol levels.

So your analogy is almost as perfect as it is possible for an analogy to be. Inflammation (of the people) can be caused by factors entirely unrelated to diversity itself - fear, ignorance, bigotry, all that stuff. But diversity does exacerbate those traits already present.

>>But can there be such a thing as too much diversity? And can there be bad diversity as there is bad cholesterol?<<

Absolutely there can.

An over-emphasis on counteracting "bad diversity" - with mindless positive discrimination, for example - is as dangerous to society as a reliance on statins to counteract "bad cholesterol". It may mask the problem for a while ("look, your cholesterol levels have fallen") but ultimately deliver no benefit, inasmuch as the patient still dies of a heart-attack, caused by stress-induced inflammation.

In the same way, encouraging "good diversity" may be as simple as ignoring it. Eschew pouring hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money into make-work schemes designed to "encourage" diversity, just as you avoid being sucked into the quack-medicine of statins, along with all its side-effects.

Good one.

I’m sorry to say Pericles that we again seem to be in agreement. ;-)

The cholesterol story is a bit more complicated. Cholesterol is “shipped” though you body wrapped in proteins. The whole bundle, cholesterol plus protein, is called lipoprotein. The size of the lipoprotein particles varies. “Good” cholesterol is really just plain old cholesterol wrapped up in a relative large particle called a “high density lipoprotein” (HDL).

“Bad cholesterol” is cholesterol wrapped up in a relatively small particle called a low density lipoprotein or LDL. Very bad cholesterol is wrapped up in an even smaller particle called a very low density lipoprotein (VLDL).

LDLs and VLDLs are able to penetrate the outer lining of the arterial wall. They can actually lodge inside the arterial wall where they may cause inflammation.

Lack of exercise, smoking and bad diet can, as you point out, cause chronic inflammation. One of the mechanisms through which they cause inflammation seems to be by altering the balance between HDLs, LDLs and VLDLs. It’s probably not the only mechanism but it is one of the mechanisms.

Statins it turns out are actually anti-inflammatories. That was not known at the time they were introduced.

The efficacy of statins is quite questionable. I was given all the data for a major study of one of the statins. I found that, ON AVERAGE, if you treated 100 people for five years you would avert four heart attacks / strokes but cause TWO EXTRA CASES OF DIABETES.

It was interesting that one quarter of the sample was fat (BMI > 30). One third smoked! Most of the reduction in heart attacks and strokes occurred among these (overlapping) groups.

There was no data on how much exercise the participants did.

If you left out the fat people and the smokers from the sample the efficacy of the statin in question was really very small.

I think giving such people statins without counseling them to change their lifestyles is unethical.

Moral of the story:

It’s not the cholesterol (diversity) it’s the wrapping! LOL

Stevenlmeyer......that looked too much like a backdown toward Pericles 'minimalist' approach.

He knew what you mean't..and so do I... too much 'diversity' is dangerous for our social health. Stick to your guns Steven.

Unmanaged, over-divesity in society is the equivalent of Unions chanting "Divided we stand... united we fall" it's patently rediculous.

Diversity is fine..as long as it's managed in the interests of social harmony and cohesian. This neccessarily means very limited numbers of 'non mainstream' people admitted, and it also neccessitates a clear and unmistakable 'selection' criteria which includes 'creed' as a top point.

We might see evidence for this soon in the USA .. where the Times Square bomber said "This is just the beginning of the war between the USA and Muslims"... another saying floating around right now in that connection is that the underpants bomber etc are just the 'raindrops of a gathering storm'..well.. no Muslims..no storm..I assure you.

Pack em all off to Gitmo? or just replace the catholics coming across the border with Muslims down to Mexico?

Just in case Pericles is drooling at me 'vilifying' "muslims".. I am taking my terminology from the times square bomber who used it himself. ("Muslims"...rather than "Islam")

ALGOREisRICH

I am sticking to my guns. And Islam is not the only dimension of “diversity”.

Since you mention Islam let me make my position clear – again.

Islam is an absolutely HIDEOUS ideology. It is vile and loathsome. Atheists who lump it together with Christianity are either ignorant or are deceiving themselves.

But Muslims on the whole are no more likely to be vile and loathsome than anybody else. Islam is not a religion of peace but most Muslims are peaceable. The terrorist threat is real but overstated.

As I’ve often put it, few Christians are as good as the teachings of Jesus and few Muslims are as bad as their religion.

The trouble starts when we try to APPEASE Islam.

Our attitude should be:

--No your religion is NOT exempt from critique, analysis satire and scorn. Making a cartoon of Muhammad licking the penis of a pig may be in execrable taste but it is NOT illegal. If you don’t like it don’t look at it.

--Calling Islam vile is NOT racism.

--You may not sentence people to death for writing, drawing or saying things that upset you. Nor can you sentence them to death for “apostasy”. If you try any of these things we shall send you to prison for incitement to violence.

--If you want to cover your face you’re welcome but you WILL uncover you face when called on to testify in court so that the jury can have a good look at you while you’re giving evidence. You WILL also uncover your face to have your drivers’ licence and passport photos taken and when lawfully asked to identify yourself.

--If parties to a dispute agree VOLUNTARILY to have their case settled according to sharia law that’s fine provided we are certain there is NO coercion involved and there WILL be a right of appeal to the secular courts.

Provided we make all this EXPLICIT and stick to it rigidly I see no problem

It's all right Boaz, you don't need to make excuses.

>>Just in case Pericles is drooling at me 'vilifying' "muslims".. I am taking my terminology from the times square bomber who used it himself.<<

I know you well enough by now to know exactly what you want to say. Your unremitting fear of Islam means that you take every opportunity to propose that they are excluded from Australia, by means of "a clear and unmistakable 'selection' criteria which includes 'creed' as a top point."

Since you yourself have adopted an extremist "creed", one that is anathema to a large number of Australians, you should thank your lucky stars that this form of selection is not enforced.

And thanks for the fill-in on cholesterol, stevenlmeyer. My GP eventually persuaded me to give statins a go, after years of tut-tutting about my (admittedly astronomic) cholesterol levels. I chickened out after three days (I couldn't sleep!) and will not go back.

As someone who does not experience stress, is not overweight, exercises (fairly!) regularly, had a tolerably acceptable diet that does not include fast foods, I decided to take my chances without drugs. So far so good.

And as Boaz points out, my "prescription" for an acceptable level of diversity is the same. Ignore any blandishments to make exceptions to our legal systems, while remaining entirely Australian in our tolerance and commitment to a "fair go".

I'd hate to suggest to Boaz, for example, that the defining trait of his Highland ancestry is having very short arms, and very long pockets. And that this is so extremely un-Australian, that we should exclude his brethren on the basis of this "creed".

"A land of meanness, sophistry and mist", as Byron described Scotland in "The Curse of Minerva".

Hmmm.