> There is a 0% chance of the US government becoming an oppressive regime, surveillance or not. Those things just don't happen in times of peace and prosperity. No country has ever gone from being an advanced democracy to being a tyrannical regime.
No, natural selection is a result of differences in reproductive success. We've lowered death, but does that somehow ensue that everyone has exactly the same number of surviving grandchildren? 30% of german women never reproduce. Among female graduates, the figure is 40%. From an evolutionary standpoint, they might as well never have lived.
Similarly, people are also perfectly capable of working while thirsty, hungry, scared, cold or tired.
If you're an actual post-pubescent person, you could do a simple experiment: Try to do serious work with half the screen playing video of attractive people, then try it with video of three-toed sloths. Do they require the same amount of executive functioning? The same amount of energy? Assuming of course that you're romantically indifferent to sloths, that the number of cuts per second is roughly equal, etc.
Suppressing phylogenetically old parts of the brain is never free, even when it's desirable. Is this sentiment inexcusable in the workplace?
It makes complete evolutionary sense, though: Women are always completely sure that their children are theirs, and men can never be.
So if your daughter physically came out of you, any people that physically comes out of her are undoubtedly your actual grandchildren. A safe investment. Your son, on the other hand, could always get cuckolded.
Alright, if discrimination is the main explanation, what's the second most important explanation? The third? Why are you sure they're less important than discrimination?
Is discrimination the only possible explanation for the empirical lack of women?
If you're sure it is, and you're actually interested in these questions, investigating discrimination in tech when you could be investigating discrimination in higher mathematics is like studying swedish-norwegian racism when you could be studying black-white racism.
You don't need personal experience, just casually google it for a while and report your findings.
I'd agree that bringing in a different perspective helps a brand or profession appeal to a wider audience. What's not apparent is that diversity fuels innovation. They're different statements.
Only one of those statements is ludicrous.