I'm sure you've heard that before. It's in reference to wearing cotton based fabrics in cold weather conditions, in that, cotton loses its insulating ability when wet, which could be deadly when worn in freezing temperatures.
I don't know why I was thinking about this, but it just popped into my mind last night completely out of the blue. I guess maybe it was because it was so unbearably hot outside that I was thinking about taking a vacation near an iceberg. Contemplating the adage, "cotton kills," lead to a long chain of associations in my mind, about the materials we use in various products, such as clothing, building materials, etc., being most suited for the climate of the materials origin.
For instance, cotton clothing is probably most suited for the type of climate where cotton plants grow, which is generally hot weather conditions. Which means that the statement "cotton kills" is only applicable to cold weather conditions, and not at all true in hot weather conditions, or those conditions where the cotton plant naturally thrives.
Okay, we all know this right? Nothing new here. But the essential insight I got from this, is that the same general principle is true I think for all things, at least in reference to natural materials. Synthetics, on the other hand, are a crap shoot, their efficacy depending entirely on whether their design matches the needs of the climate. Generally the best materials to use for any given place, are those that are either locally obtained, or if imported, come from, or are adapted to, an environment having similar climatic and geographical conditions.
That generally, what's best for the south, comes from the south. What's best for the north, comes from the north. What's best for the desert, comes from the desert. What's best for the tropics, comes from the tropics. What's best for the mountains, comes from the mountains. What's best for the forests, comes from the forests. What's best for the plains, comes from the plains. Or what works well in dry conditions, probably will not work well in humid conditions. What works well in cold conditions, probably won't work well in hot conditions.
It's so obvious, right? But look around you, and see how much stuff follows a standard homogeneous cookie cutter design, used everywhere the same way, even when it is not appropriate to the local conditions.
This is another example of the importance of diversity. Not diversity for diversities sake, or solely for the appearance of diversity, but diversity in the sense of different places having different strengths and weaknesses, and different needs, which require using different methods, that invariably produce different results. Diversity in the sense that the world should not look the same everywhere, or use the same materials or methods wherever you go.
****
But diversity is not just about appearances, it is about adapting to different conditions in ways that are most appropriate to those conditions. Doing things the same way, when it is in fact the best way for the present conditions, is not wrong. Doing things in different ways that don't work well for the present conditions, just for the sake of valuing or promoting diversity, may be wrong. That is a distortion of diversity. Misunderstanding that diversity is a product of environment, and should not be reproduced in environments inappropriate to it. Or in other words, what works here, may not work there, and to force something to fit in the name of diversity, is like forcing a square peg into a round hole, and not at all a healthy form of diversity at all.
It is not healthy diversity to import building materials or clothing that is most suited for humid conditions, if it is to be used in dry conditions.
I'm wondering if there is some greater truth here, concerning diversity and localism, that extends beyond material resources, that applies to systems and cultures and intellectual ideas, about how to build cities, how to manage businesses, how to organize societies, and how to govern people.
This is not at all a complete idea, but was just an example of the associations that came to mind last night as a result of contemplating the idea that "cotton kills," but not always, sometimes it is actually the best and most suitable fabric around, depending on where you live and how you use it.
What I learned by thinking about this is that the factors that determine the suitability of any given material or method, and which is also the primary shaper of cultural diversity, is more often than not the actual environmental conditions and unique physical geography of the earth itself.
Attempting to make everyone the same in all places, is just as unhealthy and counter to true diversity, as making all places equally diverse representations of all things; that is, importing diversity simply for the appearance of diversity, like for example, encouraging the use of different building materials or clothing, even though they may be inappropriate for the local conditions, is not real diversity. It is a mockery of diversity, because real diversity is a product of the natural adaptation to different physical environments over time, where culture is the result. Culture is the effect, environment is the cause. When you put different people in one place together, over time, this group of people becomes something completely different than what it used to be, where they become more alike than different, but completely different than what they were before.
Example, you can export a bunch of cotton clothing to cold weather climates, but eventually people are going to figure out that the local materials, that grow well in that environment, like wool, for instance, is much better. People adapt to the land, and if they don't, they have a difficult time, or they don't survive at all. Diversity is a direct response to the land. Different land, materials, and methods produce different culture.
A multicultural rainbow means absolutely nothing, other than being a shallow façade of diversity, if everybody looks different but thinks the same, or if the way we think and act is out of harmony with the needs dictated by the environment.
It is not healthy diversity to import building materials or clothing that is most suited for humid conditions, if it is to be used in dry conditions.
I'm wondering if there is some greater truth here, concerning diversity and localism, that extends beyond material resources, that applies to systems and cultures and intellectual ideas, about how to build cities, how to manage businesses, how to organize societies, and how to govern people.
This is not at all a complete idea, but was just an example of the associations that came to mind last night as a result of contemplating the idea that "cotton kills," but not always, sometimes it is actually the best and most suitable fabric around, depending on where you live and how you use it.
What I learned by thinking about this is that the factors that determine the suitability of any given material or method, and which is also the primary shaper of cultural diversity, is more often than not the actual environmental conditions and unique physical geography of the earth itself.
Attempting to make everyone the same in all places, is just as unhealthy and counter to true diversity, as making all places equally diverse representations of all things; that is, importing diversity simply for the appearance of diversity, like for example, encouraging the use of different building materials or clothing, even though they may be inappropriate for the local conditions, is not real diversity. It is a mockery of diversity, because real diversity is a product of the natural adaptation to different physical environments over time, where culture is the result. Culture is the effect, environment is the cause. When you put different people in one place together, over time, this group of people becomes something completely different than what it used to be, where they become more alike than different, but completely different than what they were before.
Example, you can export a bunch of cotton clothing to cold weather climates, but eventually people are going to figure out that the local materials, that grow well in that environment, like wool, for instance, is much better. People adapt to the land, and if they don't, they have a difficult time, or they don't survive at all. Diversity is a direct response to the land. Different land, materials, and methods produce different culture.
A multicultural rainbow means absolutely nothing, other than being a shallow façade of diversity, if everybody looks different but thinks the same, or if the way we think and act is out of harmony with the needs dictated by the environment.