The debate "Gradual reactive change is safer than proactive radical change" was started by
March 2, 2020, 12:16 pm.
22 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 5 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 5 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument, Allirix posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
Allirix, Nemiroff, coree10, diecinueve, historybuff, Craven198787 and 16 visitors agree.
5 visitors disagree.
although there will always be winners and losers, the outcome is by no means a zero sum game. everyone can benefit, the benefit is simply unlikely to be equal.
however, although there is no single solution that will perfectly satisfy every individual, there is a solution that will benefit the broader society (balancing national and individual prosperity) optimally.
in general i feel that creating good for the bottom is best practically. enabling more needed professions, educated innovators, and as many consumers who can afford to spend as possible is good for the broader nation/economy/population, including those who may see decreased short term benefit. this is purely practicality, leaving the impossible to quantify morality purely as an added bonus.
there is an overal optimal solution, even if it isnt perfect for each individual.
Our society is defined by the conflict of pluralism, where the good of some always detriments others. There is no idealistic or utopian policy that creates good for everyone, even if populist leaders make it sound like there is because they represent a majority. Security is the exception to this because everything stems from existing. But when it comes to the other stuff we can't even agree on basic questions like "What is acceptable inequality?".
You may view someone's 'education' on what's an existential threat to our lives or identities as just propaganda that makes people conplaisant. But that's the nature of pluralism. You can both be right at the same time.
i think there is 1 factor missing in that assessment, and that is the interests of those who benefit from the unequal situation and their influence on the state.
there may be times the state resists populism for the good of the people, and sometimes its to their detriment.
Yeah, like there's the situation where a dissatisfied middle class may forcefully upend the status quo if they're dissatisfied.
If the middle class wants radical changes to be satisfied then radical change should be implemented, unless the changes themself threaten the survival of the state. Then the state should resist the populist movement and try educating them on why those changes are an existential threat.
So in my opinion safe change should follow an evolving punctuated equilibrium model where change is mostly gradual, but sometimes it is safer to make radical changes to avoid obvious problems.
in a way agreed, but my question was trying to clarify if that is a rule of thumb, or an iron clad law? are there exceptions?
If security is your goal then being safe is better.
The realist argument is that all values are secondary to security because everything stems from survival.
If so, then since safety is security, safety is better than everything else. Some situations call for radical change to survive, but that's a rare exception, so a security mindset should still view it with skepticism
I'm not sure how anyone could disagree with the topic as stated. Slow and steady is safer than fast and sweeping. But as Nemiroff asked, that isn't always a good thing. Slow and steady tends to favor those in power who have the power to influence change. They can steer the changes in the direction that benefits them personally, and not society in general and certainly not the poor in particular.
Sometimes, when the system itself is designed to resist change and benefit one specific group of people, you need a sudden drastic change in order to fix a broken system.
similarly, one can do gradual change proactively, as well as radical change reactively.
furthermore, are there times when a system needs a complete rethinking and gradual changes will never result in the necessary change, even given time?
i agree, but is safer always better?
what if the system is completely broken, like slavery? would slow incremental change still be the ideal?