Interesting topic folks.
There are a lot of occasions when cultural diversity are entirely beneficial, both in artistic and scientific terms. My own issues with diversity come far more from patriotic, jingoistic, tribal reasons for remaining seperate from one's fellow person, rather than any logic or societal reason.
I highly value cultural diversity in that one culture can often learn and benefit from the different mindset that speaking another language, and living in another culture can bring, where I have issues are when there are political or basically tribal reasons for not embracing and changing another ideal.
For example. I live in the UK, we are a European country, and there would be enormous economic and social benefits from fully embracing the European community and entering into a closer partnership. We currently still use the £ Sterling as our currency instead of the Euro, despite the many obvious benefits that would stem from changing over, simply in my opinion because politicians know they would lose their seat at the next election if they voted for it. Why? Because a vociferous minority of the population, and our jingoistic, xenophobic tabloid press keep stirring up stories about how "bad" Europe is, and what a disaster if we lost the Pound, and why did we fight the last war, etc.....Diversity in this area is not a good idea, and yet we have it.
One can still retain a sense of cultural identity, even when we integrate in other areas. What seems to be the main bone of contention is that integration in some areas predisposes us towards integration in other areas.
There are obvious areas where integration would be of great value, from economic, global stability, and political standpoints. It is entirely possible to integrate for example a common defence policy like NATO or the European Defence Initiative without losing sense of cultural or social indentity.
Most people however cling to the old tribal values, if you aren't from my tribe, you are a threat, and this ingrained belief structure stops a fuller and more complete integration from taking place, even when it is beneficial.
One can integrate without losing cultural or linguistic diversity, both of which are of enormous benefit to the entire world. One can adopt a single main official language, whilst still promoting and keeping other languages both spoken and written as important and valuable.
Going back to TVM's example of the Indian theatre, there is no reason to do away with that in the face of integration in other areas, in fact it should be kept and promoted simply because it is important to the culture from which it comes.
Single global economics, a single global common language, a single global legal system, which promotes cultural diversity both in scientific and artistic endeavour would be for me the best way forwards.
I prefer the humanist philospohy of J.S. Mill. We should be allowed to act in any fashion we desire, so long as we do not harm others against their will. I promote individual diversity, whilst promoting a certain level of global homogenisation.
Whilst I accept a strictly dictionary definition of the terms may be different, I have always seen morals as a code of behaviour that come from a religious stricture or root, and ethics as a code of behaviour defined from some other source. I realise that this may not be strictly true, but it does help in understanding the thought behind the code.
Most morals are handed down, and people do not question their validity since most major religions tend not to encourage questioning or thought, but blind obediance. Ethics too can be handed down, but in many cases are defined by the person or society, and are often questioned.
Whilst morals may be setup as purely objectivist, right or wrong, I would argue against Ayn Rand and Steve Ditko and many other objectivists. Whilst in an ideal world there would be no occasion in which something defined as moral could be questioned, practically I cannot think of a "moral" statement or law that under a specific set of circumstances can be shown to be at the very least debateable.
Whilst both morals and ethics may be a good guideline or set of rules that the majority of the populace should follow, no law should EVER be applied blindly. Strict laws that do not take into account cicumstances will ALWAYS under some circumstances condemn the innocent in a non-perfect legal system.
I do not believe that the ends justify the means, everything is always open to moral/ethical debate, and always should be. We should always examine our laws and societal rules in light of changing circumstances, otherwise our legal and social system becomes obsolete, and prevents the one thing that human society is always doing, which is change.
A couple of facile examples are that in the 12th century a law was passed in the UK that every man over the age of 13 should practise archery for 2 hours every Sunday after church, and that in the 13th century a law was passed that it is legal to shoot and kill a heretic on English soil with a crossbow or longbow.
Neither law has been repealed and yet neither is enforced. In objectivist terms, failure to adhere to the law is wrong. At the time both laws were needed and warranted, now both are obsolete and dangerous.
Any belief that law, morals or ethics are in black and white and not open to interpretation are inherently dangerous, and I wouldn't want to live in a world that. We've had societies like this before, Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Europe in the Dark Ages, Islamic countries under Sharia law, take your pick. You could also cite the examples of religious cults again who do not accpet any other view of the world except their own.
None of them have ever been a pleasant place to live or promoted diversity, cultural, societal or political.
Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste......