And similarly, I know plenty of people who consider gender-inclusive policies as a form of psuedoscience too (in that they don't give it much credence).
Diversity is quite literally the reason life still exists after billions of years and five mass extinction catastrophes. It is the foundation for the predominant economic system in human society as well as all of the technological and scientific progress we've made. Hell, you can't even really have cultural (in the broadest sense) progress without a diversity of ideas and opinions, let alone a functioning, stable democracy.
I'm skeptical of race- and gender-inclusive policies because they're often blindly implemented and detrimental to their goals but diversity has shown itself to be not just important, but vital, to the long term success of any large, complex system, whether it be the Apollo program or our planet's ecosystem. I'd love to hear rational arguments against, however.
> diversity has shown itself to be not just important, but vital, to the long term success of any large, complex system, whether it be the Apollo program or our planet's ecosystem.
No, it's causation. The probability that everything goes right in a sufficiently complex system is zero and the probability that a single failure will cause runaway feedback loops or cascading side effects is extremely high, which causes a stable system to go unstable and makes total failure almost inevitable. Without diversity, you can't recover from these failure modes (drastic changes in the ecosystem causing extinction in the case of evolution, limits of physics or economics causing a dead end in science and engineering, changes in the rest of the economy causing centrally planned economies to fall apart, etc).
That is a contrived counterexample that completely ignores the very basics of evolution and how changing environments help drive adaptation. Picking out one irrelevant trait here and asking if diversity is useful is like asking "how much value is there in diversity of spleens in the Rust Community?" They don't care about spleens, they care about people who are interested in Rust; just like natural selection favors organisms who can reproduce, not individual traits.
Natural selection will favor the animals who don't have to waste energy on pigmentation... until a billion years later when a sink hole opens up or one of the species evolves bio luminescence and all the organisms that lack pigments start to reflect all incoming light back at their new, hungry predators. That's the whole point: environments change all the time and the chance of a species surviving is dependent on the diversity of its members, just like the survival of carbon based life through a planetary mass extinction event is dependent on the diversity of species.
Evolution can only happen through random mutation so, by definition, any environment with evolving life forms is always changing unpredictably.
How do you know the (heavily politicized, myopically chosen, inescapably coarse-grained) identity groups they're targeting offer a form of diversity that actually has value in the realm of Rust? Why do you believe that these identity group traits correlate strongly with intellectual diversity that is necessary for the project's health?
If anything, this process (and the efforts from which it stems) seem purposefully designed to eliminate intellectual diversity, in favor of a rigid monoculture maintained by empowering political officers in the enforcement of right-think.
I'm skeptical of race- and gender-inclusive policies because they're often blindly implemented and detrimental to their goals but diversity has shown itself to be not just important, but vital, to the long term success of any large, complex system, whether it be the Apollo program or our planet's ecosystem. I'd love to hear rational arguments against, however.