And what are the numbers and sources of the facts that you are quoting?
What is more, your posting seem to confuse different kinds of facts, specifically titles (items sold) with consumers (people). Increased downloads do not necessarily translate into greater shares of population consuming a particular genre - they may simply indicate increased downloading capacity of a market niche that otherwise remains relatively constant as a share of the population. If you lecture others about ignorance of facts, it would be helpful to have your own facts straight, no?
Second, growing market shares of the Britney et al. variety - and I presume you are referring here to people rather than titles, since unlike downloads, multiple purchases of the same CD by one person are unlikely - invariably means that other genres lose their shares. Shares always ad to 100% last time I checked, so it is a zero sum game.
Third, and going beyond bean counting, all the examples of "innovative adaptations" that you et el. quoted are mere local adaptations of the stuff originally promoted by the US (or to lesser extent British) labels - techno, hip hop, punk etc. Is that your concept of diversity? It seems pretty narrow minded. Even someone with limited knowledge of music like myself knows about other musical traditions (Arabic, Chinese) not to mention individual countries (Italy, France, Slavic countries) and hundreds more.
If your concept of musical diversity is limited to local variations on Anglophone themes - you can keep your diversity, and your music with it, thank you.
Wojtek