Let's talk about a complete hypothetical here.
If you were in control of a computer simulation, and you needed it to reach a particular final state, how would you "manipulate" or "guide" the simulation over time?
And taking a step back, are we living in a "simulation"?
If the answer is yes, have the clues been left for us to see who would believe in it? (perhaps this one for another post)
Now, I believe to some degree that we live in a "simulation" if you see it this way. As higher beings have put us in our bodies with mostly free will.
Think about the qualities of life - ignoring our most basic needs, but think about the fact that humans have many different kinds - different shapes, sizes and races. We all possess different cultures, and ultimately have been forced to co-exist on this earth, whether for mutual benefit or out of coercion by more powerful forces.
Technologies have also been improving over decades. 1000 years ago, societies were largely isolated, except for explorers and travellers who share tidbits of culture from one culture to another. With improved technology - transportation and communication - our initial state which started out as segregated groups, is now immensely globalised.
Some may be defensive of our traditional cultures, and that's okay too. But reality - the powers that be have allowed people from all races a chance to travel and experience different realities.
Back to my original question. What if this was the intended "final state"? Why would it be like this?
Perhaps we are taught to be more understanding and patient with different people and cultures, because that is the soul destiny of the earth's people - that we are bound together by a shared consciousness (see Jung).
Why would this be "allowed" if there is no proper social cohesion, with different values being forcibly placed together? Again, this is a test of our tolerance but also whether we can extend our love and compassion beyond who we would normally be comfortable with.
So, the whole scenario of globalisation has split the world into two extremes - supporters of mass migration and "culture erasure" (by making it less distinct), and race-based "nationalism" of purity, both of which can be manipulated into intentions of evil for those who are brainwashed to believe one or the other is superior.
And yes, perhaps my belief in this is a product of my identity and upbringing. But I do believe it is possible to have an even balance of the two sides, with a tolerance and understanding of all cultures. In an ideal world, this is bi-directional - visitors and migrants can bring the beauty of their cultures and have a learning experience from their adoptive nation.
I have not made a mention of religion - which I have made clear in my previous posts - as I believe it is a factor that divides us more than it brings us together. But culture can be learnt through foods, languages, activities and more.
I think religion conflates the equation - if we removed it, perhaps the multicultural experiment would not be so divisive. I truly think John Lennon was right.