That's why I've called it: Diversity vs Dissimilarity

Literally: "A house divided against itself cannot stand".

Diversity is necessary in most systems to a small degree because total homogeneity is typically disastrous long term. Any system that is varied is capable of adapting from a decentralized method.

A homogeneous system can only adapt through a coordinated command structure; and normally it takes a significant amount of information before a decision is made to adapt the system as a whole. This is why centralized systems are inherently less efficient than decentralized ones.

Dissimilarity, however, is not workable in any system. It is the destruction of that system. A system where parts are wholly unconnected or not in communication only segregates that system into smaller parts. The best case scenario is that a diverse system responds to dissimilarity by breaking off the dissimilar portion and continuing on as two parallel and incompatible systems. The worst case scenario is that the homogeneous system has an internal dissimilarity that it can't compensate against, and it shatters into dozens of smaller and totally dissimilar parallel systems.

A dissimilar system is inherently logically inconsistent and incommunicable.

Although what I'm saying is vague, it's true in general to basically any system. You can apply it to economies, immune systems, species, sexual reproduction, politics, or even a team workflow.

Homogeneity is inefficient. Diversity is uncontrollable. Dissimilarity is destructive.