Society Gets More Progressive Because People Die

[Richard Hakluyt]

I think it is more that society changes because people die; we can lose the "progressive". To risk invoking Godwin's law I wonder how many German Jews were wandering around in the late 1930s saying "Yay! Society is getting more progressive!".

Heh in the early 1900s things like eugenics and social Darwinism were, in fact, labelled as "progressive". The Nazis just took these things to an extreme. They certainly considered themselves (and were considered by many others) to be the wave of the future.

The reality is that "progressive" is not the same as "good". Older people are more small-c conservative (not exactly a revelation, that). But being conservative, however much the current right wing populists have disgraced that title, isn't necessarily a bad thing, as not all change is for the better.

Point taken.

Tomorrow belongs to me and all that.

[crazy canuck]

So what's the implication?  If you want society to change quickly, does that mean the most effective way to do so is to make deaths happen...earlier?   

The implication at this point in time is that political parties who do not have meaningful policies to address climate change are doomed as the people who think it climate change is a matter of belief rather than science are about to die off.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.

[frunk]

Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.

Which arises from our tendency to focus on what is bad.  Good change goes relatively unnoticed, so it's easy to fall into the trap of viewing change as bad.

[Berkut]

Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.

Which arises from our tendency to focus on what is bad.  Good change goes relatively unnoticed, so it's easy to fall into the trap of viewing change as bad.

While this is true, lets not forget that sometimes change can go rather horribly bad. Like, catastrophically so.

Being *careful* about change makes perfectly good sense. The assumption should be that it requires active data and reason to make changes.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I would say that reasoned argument and attempts to achieve broad consensus are the best way of ensuring that change leads to improvement. The partisan and shouty politics we currently have in the US and UK is bound to lead to poorer decisions in my view; to the detriment of all, regardless of whether your "side" is currently in the ascendant or not.

[frunk]

While this is true, lets not forget that sometimes change can go rather horribly bad. Like, catastrophically so.

Being *careful* about change makes perfectly good sense. The assumption should be that it requires active data and reason to make changes.

I agree.  I'm talking about gut reactions to things.  If people are actually making decisions based on data and reasoning that's most of the battle right there.

[Habbaku]

Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.

Which arises from our tendency to focus on what is bad.  Good change goes relatively unnoticed, so it's easy to fall into the trap of viewing change as bad.

While this is true, lets not forget that sometimes change can go rather horribly bad. Like, catastrophically so.

Being *careful* about change makes perfectly good sense. The assumption should be that it requires active data and reason to make changes.

Edmund Burke wins again.

[Valmy]

Reaction to change can also go rather horribly bad. You can convince people to do all kinds of terrible shit just be convincing them that everything is going to hell.

[Oexmelin]

Edmund Burke wins again.

[Barrister]

Edmund Burke wins again.

[Habbaku]

Edmund Burke wins again.

You prefer the guillotine, I take it?

[Oexmelin]

You prefer the guillotine, I take it?

I do.

I mean, I don't, but Burke was a very poor reader of French history - and, like many of his ilk, in the sort of comfortable situation that makes counseling time and patience stretched to an indefinite, timeless horizon, an appealing perspective. I strongly dislike the fact that people erect Burke as a champion of moderation and rationalism: his was a political stance, no more, and no less, than his opponents - one that always counsels patience, but has no actual theory of change. 

[Berkut]

I think the OTHER lesson to the OP is that change is actually inevitable. Being against change for the sake of maintaining the status quo is not just a bad idea, it is in fact, impossible.

Change is coming. You can either understand, control, and leverage it, or you can resist it and hold it back....and reap the consequences of letting the change come from chaos instead of control.

But there isn't a "lets not change" option on the table.

[Maximus]

Re conservatism and radicalism. It is almost a matter of optimism vs pessimism; a staunch conservative thinking that a change is unlikely to improve matters while a radical may think that almost any change will be for the better. It explains the greater conservatism of the older cohorts; they have seen many apparently good ideas fail so are more sceptical of change yielding positive results.

That seems to be a very conservative view of change.