Though respect for diversity? is often stated as an absolute ideal, diversity is a means not an end, except insofar as it correlates to biodiversity. But even in that case, it has limits.

Most persons would support extinction of organisms such as the smallpox? virus?, for instance, though it does not threaten biodiversity and may enhance it (by reducing human population). In this case, diversity of the humans trumps the existence of this one parasite? organism that seems not to serve any other ecological functions than to kill humans.

More sociologically, most persons would not prefer a mix of family respecting and child loving persons, and sexual predator?s who see children only as a source of sexual gratification, living in their neighbourhood. The future psychological diversity of children able to grow up without these pressures to serve adult desires, trumps that of the adults. See honour child? for more on this idea.

It is also necessary in all cases to prefer locality to ideology: sound ecology and good neighbour? relations, with open politics in force, limits diversity with respect to living bodies in proximity. It is simply not, in any philosophy, an acceptable position to argue that one might destroy natural capital or totally disregard social capital and retain, for example, property rights, in such a situation. The argument that one must do so is common only in neoclassical philosophy? and its Royal Libertarian? strain. By contrast the neoclassical economics does not assume or require any such absolutist terms of reference on rights of property and how they are gained or lost, and geo-libertarian views of property are conditional on satisfying the nearby persons that one is a responsible holder of control over, among other things, the upstream? water supply.

Show php error messages