The debate "Society needs change makers and stabilisers in order to survive" was started by
June 24, 2020, 3:46 am.
28 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 11 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, Harmony posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Harmony, Nemiroff, AerichJ, Abeah and 24 visitors agree.
britishwolf and 10 visitors disagree.
society needs to change full stop but to something completely new. we still harbour our tribal instincts when we have reached an age when a man can walk the moon. what's more is that stability iisnt the future we shall want. some of our greatest discoveries are due to the fact we have been unstable, although change makers are vital however vague you may be with it. so if you were to ask me this should get a no. 'stabalisers' contradict change as much as possible and change is our only way forward. if it was just changers then this would be a yes but alas is isnt so therefore this should be a no.
i wouldn't say they go more extreme, they just miss out on constructive criticism that would moderate their ideas to begin with.
Yeah, if stabilisers are too stubborn it can push Changemakers to extreme ends.
the whole thing goes out of whack when stabilizers refuse any change