Reply #41: Agree to a point

[Jose Diablo]

If there will be widespread travel then mixing at a certain rate would be needed.

For an example compare Eurasia (old world) contact with America (new world). The isolation of the America's for 10,000 years or so, while Eurasia experienced a flood of diseases did enhance the Native American's chances of death by disease when widespread migration of Europeans 'invaded' the Americas. Compare this to the Europeans invasion of say China/Japan. Not the same. Because there was some transmission of the microbes between Europe and Asia. Not much, but some.

However, with modern transportation, the rate of transmission of all diseases becomes inevitable. It is a question of rate, I think. Modern transportation gives the 'bugs' a tremendous advantage. Think of it as a frequent flier program for disease.

Does the advantages of modern society outweigh the threat of modern society? I don't know if overall mankind is 'better-off' with all these modern conveniences. Are we happier? There is definitely more of us, but in the end, are we better off.

I am not really a 'Luddite', just wondering if things are really 'better' today.

Edit: Besides, your statements about mixing is better do not address the original statement that diversity is better for a survival of some standpoint. If mankind does mix at a rate that guarantees that each individual in the worldwide population is by and large identical to all others. Then eventually there will be a world killing event that will take out everyone.