I want a brief speach on "Diversity Is Strength" anybudy can gimme a brief info about it.Thanx?
828630
Well, diversity can mean that you have specialists on a wide variety of opinions. So if a lot of people with varied backgrounds work together on a project, you'll have a lot more ideas on how to troubleshoot problems.
904731
Not necessarily,  most people call it CULTURAL DIVERSITY.\n\n/doc
73469
This smells like schoolwork so I'll just leave a few leads. \nBiodiversity or biological diversity can be measured as:\n- species diversity\n- ecological diversity\n- genetic diversity\nEach has specific methodologies for conservation.\n\nConservation can be basically of two types: \n- in situ\n- ex situ.\n\nTry the web and also the book "Living in the environment" by G. Tyler Miller. It's probably available in your school library.
769277
Diversity In the United States? \nTry to show relation to class or teacher? school? town?\n1. Boring chart of where most/least diverse. (Only don't make it boring.)\n2. Type of diversity you are talking about, plastic overlays for each over USA map?\n3. Historical influxes of people - relate to popular books/movies \n4. Children of 1st wave,  2nd wave \n5. Reasons to come here, were they worth it? # that went back? Reasons for going back?\n6. Social-political power? Changes in town/city?\n7. Education of children better or worse = diversity?\n8. Impact on market/stores - where's the money? \n9. Impact diversity has on modern life, inventions, freedoms, etc.\n\nI hope some of this helpful.(?)
990517
12 March 2002\n\nPOINTS OF ORIGINS: Variety is the Spice of Life\nby Dr. Glenn Jackson\n\nAmong modern environmentalists the term "species diversity" is a real keyword. Having lots of different species is considered good for the environment. But having all these species makes it hard to classify them all. When you start to talk about all of the extinct species too -- well, it gets pretty crowded. Most evolutionists are fond of pointing out that 95% (some even say 99%) of all species that have ever lived, are now extinct. Let me suggest a thought that may never have occurred to you before. Maybe most of these were just species that didn't make it to survive much beyond the year of Noah's Flood. Maybe all these "weird" prehistoric life forms only look weird to us because we're just not used to them anymore. There is mounting evidence that the ancient world had many more species -- but all living at the same time! -- not all living in vastly different times like the Paleozoic and Jurassic, etc. One entomologist (insect-studier) from Univ of Kansas says, "I never expected to find this staggering array of diversity. It blew me away." Dr. Engel is an expert on bees (Science News, 2/10/01, p87). A newer DNA study has found that crabs "must have evolved at least five different times." (Science News, 3/2/02) Now it's impossible enough to believe that crabs evolved even once -- let alone five times! Bat DNA seems to indicate that echo-location must have "evolved" in bats at least two times -- maybe three. This conclusion even has the evolutionists going batty! I'm serious. This has been driving them nuts. How could sonar have evolved twice? It's so far-fetched to believe that it could have even evolved once! To make matters worse, fossil species are now so many, that the names are getting all confused (Knoxville-News Sentinel, 2/4/02, pE14). I believe that the richness of the Earth's many species of living things today -- is nowhere near what it was before the Great Flood. That would explain why we see fossils of all these "weird" creatures trapped in the rocks left by the debris from the Flood. With all those extra life forms, there were plenty for evolutionists to choose from, while they were looking for all of their "missing links." Well, since they have started to double-check on all of those links, by using DNA, they have found that their best examples really weren't links at all -- but totally separate created kinds, just like the Genesis account predicts. If the scientists would only begin to do their investigations based on the assumption that creation is true and not evolution -- I'd bet that they'd reach their conclusions a lot faster, and things wouldn't be so confusing but would all begin to make perfect sense. Well, "thinking themselves wise they became fools." You keep thinking. \n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nDr. Glenn Jackson holds four degrees in science and education from George Mason University and University of Virginia. He has taught elementary through college level sciences for over twenty years and in four states. He is a lifetime member of both American Mensa and the Creation Research Society.
333945
So, look at multicultural orgs and see if any of them deal with social responsibility issues.\n\nWhat do you mean, anyway?  What is your idea of a "multicultural" organization?
614538
What' the saying; bird of the same feather flock together.  I don't think multiracial societies are the key to peace. About the only thing we do know for sure is where the cure has to start.  It has to start in the home, the basic building block for any community or country.  Nothing good will happen in your statehouse, or in your schoolhouse, if it does not start, and is not sustained, in your own house!
725362
I thought that it sounded great until I read Coragryph's answer.  He is right, separating them is still discrimination.\n\nHowever, I do not see this country accepting his idea as easily as yours.  So I would say, let's shoot for your idea first.  Let the homophobes get used to it, then institute Coragryph's ideal.
98257
EDUCATION IS VERY GOOD AND MORE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE MORE OF IT.\n\nI HAVE NOTHING WRONG WITH DIVERSITY AS LONG IT IS DONE IN MODERATION.\n \nI DO HAVE A PROBLEM WHEN PEOPLE PUSH IT ON MY LIKE A TIDAL WAVE. THEN IT DIVERSITY IS JUST ANOTHER WAY THE PC(POLITICAL COERRCTNESS) PEOPLE ARE TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOM.
487425
Diversity = lots of different things all at the same place and time.  It has become a loaded word in our society, because the US is home to a lot of different types of people sharing the same resources.  However, it can also mean biological diversity in the environment (many different species of plants and animals), or a diverse menu at a restaurant (many different meals offered at the same place).
224504
Good woman's book, if you can't get your head around the fact that men & women are different.\n"Men are from Mars, women from Venus." Same stuff.\nBurn your bra & get on with life. We only pass this way once... Enjoy it!!
267322
I was brought up to be accepting of everyone, so in a college Anthropology class I was mystified by any kind of "ism" (racism, sexism, etc.)  I asked my instructor to explain this to me, and I was so impressed by his answer it has stayed with me for years:\n\nIn our ancient past, there was SURVIVAL VALUE in being wary and cautious of anyone who was "different" from one's own tribe.  Example: in your tribe, waving the right hand means "hello, friend".  You met humans from another tribe, to whom that means "I'm going to kill you!"  So you waved. And they tried to kill you!  So you learned that any time you meet someone from a tribe not your own, you cannot count on anything meaning the same as it does to you!\n\nAlso, consider this:  homosexuals cannot reproduce "naturally".  So if the goal was survival of our species (which it was back then, before overpopulation), anyone who engaged in homosexual behavior "threatened" the species goal.\n\nFast forward to today.  Homophobia exists because our society is very uneven in how it grows and develops.  We have grown to the point where gays and lesbians cannot be legally discriminated against.  Yet humans have the same "hard-wiring" we have always had, which says different=bad.  And non-reproduction=bad.  We know we don't really NEED more humans on the Earth, yet our programming tells us to reproduce.  And there are still some religions who promote and reward cranking out lots of kids, and/or punish those who artificially limit their reproduction.\n\nOr different=scary.\n\nReligious conservatives are scared, in general.  They are a good example of ethno- religio- and every other- centrism.  (-centrism loosely defined is "mine is better than yours", i.e., ethnocentrism is "my ethnic group is better than yours", etc.)\n\nSo in answer to your question, the answer is "Yes.  Religious (and other) conservatives DO need a minority (or "other") to beat up on.  It makes them feel safer, more in control, more "right" (no pun intended) to do so.\n\nThat was a pretty verbose answer.  The short version is:\n\nPhobia = irrational fear.  Once upon a time, the fear of anyone different was rational.  In modern times, it isn't.  Our social conscience evolution has not keep up.
598634
This is true of most nations. There is great diversity in India, There is in the US too. Look at Iraq. There are just three nations which are already diverse in a world which is becoming more diverse daily. I n my mind, it is important that the population of a country identify themselves as nationals of that country and participate in its culture to strengthen a sense of community. However, the thousands of years of separatism in ay given place does not allow any other nation to dismiss it, rationally. As a sovereign nation, it may be difficult to integrate the needs of all the subsets of communities, but it is impossible to say that a nation must first unite its population before we can build good relations with that nation. The stakes are so very high.
173746
See the various types of questions asked at Yahoo! Answers.Also see the various different answers for the same question.Isnt that enough to proove diversity?
1036624
different levels of knowledge breeds diversity = conflict?\n\nmaybe god wanted his creations to follow a set of imperatives and hence live harmonious lives
957715
I thought it was brilliant. I love how it dealt with racism. Instead of the in your face stuff such as calling someone a racist name or beating someone up, it revealed the 'light' side of racism where people are 'anti-racists' but still prejudiced against other races. I thought it was a great eye opener and about time someone shed light on it.
543088
I particularly like "Same Sex Unions in Pre Modern Europe" by John Boswell and it would be neat to see his evidence online, perhaps in timeline form.  Gay marriage is a hot topic, and those of us who do history know that this whole "marriage has always been between a man and a woman" thing is total crap.  Plenty of societies have had, allowed, and encouraged same sex marriage, like Native American societies.  I would like to see more about that online.