the ultimate conservatism

[Advocate]

The ultimate conservatism is to say that we need to stop progressing. Interpreted pragmatically this means stop searching for New knowledge and use what we've got to address the problems we already have a handle on fixing.

[Immanuel Can]

The ultimate conservatism is to say that we need to stop progressing.

Well, no. That's a very odd claim. It certifies that you know nothing about conservatism. You should read Roger Scruton, perhaps, or some other such conservative.

Conservatism says that AS we are changing, we also need to preserve the goods and achievements of the past, so as not to lose the value of them. Unlike "progressives," they do not blithely trust that whatever just happens to be "new" or "next" is also bound to be better, or to take us in the right direction; so before buying in, they ask for evidence and proofs that it is better before it should be allowed to replace the good things we already have.

In a similar way, Progressives treat the past as disposable, as the waste-pit of history. Conservatives regard it as a legacy to be mined and utilized to create that better future for which everybody longs. Progressives think technology, government and collectives are easy roads to better things; conservatives know history, though: and they know that all three have, in times past, produced not just good things but bad ones...some so hideously bad we ought to safeguard against them.

Conservatism appeals to more adults because adults know what life is really like. They're mature, and they understand how badly wrong good intentions can go. So they tend not to rush foolishly into anybody else's vision of the future, but rather point out the necessity of retaining the progress achieved in the past. Progressivism tends to appeal strongly to teens, college students, and their professors, as well as to uneducated masses on welfare -- all of whom are accustomed to being provided for by others, theorize more than think, or have very limited actual life experience.

Conservatism is for grownups. Progressivism...well,...

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=488017 time=1609871568 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=488016 time=1609870257 user_id=15238]
The ultimate conservatism is to say that we need to stop progressing.
[/quote]
Well, no. That's a very odd claim. It certifies that you know nothing about conservatism. You should read Roger Scruton, perhaps, or some other such conservative.

Conservatism says that AS we are changing, we also need to preserve the goods and achievements of the past, so as not to lose the value of them. Unlike "progressives," they do not blithely trust that whatever just happens to be "new" or "next" is also bound to be better, or to take us in the right direction; so before buying in, they ask for [i]evidence and proofs[/i] that it is better before it should be allowed to replace the good things we already have.

In a similar way, Progressives treat the past as disposable, as the waste-pit of history. Conservatives regard it as a legacy to be mined and utilized to create that better future for which everybody longs. Progressives think technology, government and collectives are easy roads to better things; conservatives know history, though: and they know that all three have, in times past, produced not just good things but bad ones...some so hideously bad we ought to safeguard against them.

Conservatism appeals to more adults because adults know what life is really like. They're mature, and they understand how badly wrong good intentions can go. So they tend not to rush foolishly into anybody else's vision of the future, but rather point out the necessity of retaining the progress achieved in the past. Progressivism tends to appeal strongly to teens, college students, and their professors, as well as to uneducated masses on welfare -- all of whom are accustomed to being provided for by others, theorize more than think, or have very limited actual life experience.

Conservatism is for grownups. Progressivism...well,...
[/quote]

It's more conservative than that to not dilute old values and systems with new ideas while and until we sort out what's worth keeping.

[Skepdick]

Unlike "progressives," they do not blithely trust that whatever just happens to be "new" or "next" is also bound to be better, or to take us in the right direction; so before buying in, they ask for evidence and proofs that it is better before it should be allowed to replace the good things we already have.

Conservatism is for grownups. Progressivism...well,...

How do conservatives propose to acquire any evidence for the betterness of new things if they never experiment with new things?

Is the evidence supposed to manufacture itself?

[Immanuel Can]

...if they never experiment with new things?

They do, of course. Conservatism is not objection to change; it's the advocating of principled, rational change.

But change itself? That's a constant.

[Scott Mayers]

The ultimate conservatism is to say that we need to stop progressing.

Well, no. That's a very odd claim. It certifies that you know nothing about conservatism. You should read Roger Scruton, perhaps, or some other such conservative.

Conservatism says that AS we are changing, we also need to preserve the goods and achievements of the past, so as not to lose the value of them. Unlike "progressives," they do not blithely trust that whatever just happens to be "new" or "next" is also bound to be better, or to take us in the right direction; so before buying in, they ask for evidence and proofs that it is better before it should be allowed to replace the good things we already have.

In a similar way, Progressives treat the past as disposable, as the waste-pit of history. Conservatives regard it as a legacy to be mined and utilized to create that better future for which everybody longs. Progressives think technology, government and collectives are easy roads to better things; conservatives know history, though: and they know that all three have, in times past, produced not just good things but bad ones...some so hideously bad we ought to safeguard against them.

Conservatism appeals to more adults because adults know what life is really like. They're mature, and they understand how badly wrong good intentions can go. So they tend not to rush foolishly into anybody else's vision of the future, but rather point out the necessity of retaining the progress achieved in the past. Progressivism tends to appeal strongly to teens, college students, and their professors, as well as to uneducated masses on welfare -- all of whom are accustomed to being provided for by others, theorize more than think, or have very limited actual life experience.

Conservatism is for grownups. Progressivism...well,...

"Conservatism" refers to KEEPING THE POWER of government in the hands of the economically advantaged and to those who favor PERPETUITY in the 'rights' of SELECT people based upon nature of people to favor them based on mere genetic factors and their cultural beliefs, like their religious beliefs being ENTRENCHED in fixed codes of conduct.

"Progressives" refers to UPDATING changes to reflect the contemporary conditions of change, like one altering their cultural/religious beliefs, supports of science that indicate environmental changes that affect ALL of us, and to DISTRIBUTE ownership to favor the PRESENT population, not those who WILL their benefits exclusively to those strictly of their own races and family members.

[Immanuel Can]

"Conservatism" refers to KEEPING THE POWER of government in the hands of the economically advantaged and to those who favor PERPETUITY in the 'rights' of SELECT people based upon nature of people to favor them based on mere genetic factors and their cultural beliefs, like their religious beliefs being ENTRENCHED in fixed codes of conduct.

If the source of this definition is not your own overheated imagination, then please give your reference for it, so we know not to blame you for being so wildly wrong. But it bears no resemblance to the truth, either way.

Demonizing again.

[Skepdick]

They do, of course. Conservatism is not objection to change; it's the advocating of principled, rational change.

But change itself? That's a constant.

Basically, you are attempting to climb upon a moral high horse by insisting that conservatives are rational and principled whereas progressives aren't, which is the usual strawman of all apologists.

Change may be a constant, but the rate of change isn't.

From the lens of change management the difference between progressives and conservatives boils down to the rate of change: progressives want faster rational/principled change, conservatives want slower rational/principled change.

And so the question really boils down to whether slow change is better than fast change or vice versa.

Ceteris paribus faster is better. Because time is a finite resource.

Let one example from history suffice (in context of COVID). The smallpox vaccine was invented in the late 18th century. It took another 200 years to eradicate the disease.

Progressives would've preferred it to take 100 years or less.
Conservatives... well. They fought against mandatory vaccination.

[Scott Mayers]

"Conservatism" refers to KEEPING THE POWER of government in the hands of the economically advantaged and to those who favor PERPETUITY in the 'rights' of SELECT people based upon nature of people to favor them based on mere genetic factors and their cultural beliefs, like their religious beliefs being ENTRENCHED in fixed codes of conduct.

If the source of this definition is not your own overheated imagination, then please give your reference for it, so we know not to blame you for being so wildly wrong. But it bears no resemblance to the truth, either way.

Demonizing again.

That wasn't a derogatory definition. If you are interpreting it negative, it is in light of what you know I favor. The capitalized words are matched to the complementary definition. Basically, the 'conservative' is to the Royalty as the 'progressives' are to the Common people. The common people want power and so require change in order for it to occur; the royalty prefers to keep control and inheritance in a special belief in their lineage. The common people like 'common law' that enables intepreting situations case by case; the royalty likes to keep things as is. These are not PROPRIETARY definitions but general to the intentional meanings.

But I'm tired of politics at the moment. I just responded to you elsewhere and need a break from it.

[Dimebag]

The two systems are both reflections of systems within us.

Conservatism reflects the part of our minds which loves order, the known, safety, and pragmatism.

Progressivism reflects our interest in the unknown, exploration, expansion, and chaos.

Both extremes are alone, not ideal. In order to progress, you need a strong and sturdy base of operations from which to operate, which is provided by conservative tendencies. But to avoid stagnation, and eventual decay, the model of what works needs to be continually updated, and as society is always changing inherently, what worked before may not work now, so things need that updating. Just look at how technology has changed the very way our lives function. No amount of holding on to the past will reverse the changes this connected world is undergoing. So we need to be open to change, yet not allow ourselves to forget where we came from, and what being a human being entails.

Whether we are doing a good job at adapting to this change while preserving what is meaningful is another thing, which these days I do question.

[Advocate]

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.

[Iwannaplato]

Conservatism says that AS we are changing, we also need to preserve the goods and achievements of the past, so as not to lose the value of them. Unlike "progressives," they do not blithely trust that whatever just happens to be "new" or "next" is also bound to be better, or to take us in the right direction; so before buying in, they ask for evidence and proofs that it is better before it should be allowed to replace the good things we already have.

It seems to me conservatives in general, with obvious individual exceptions, are not conservative in relation to technology. They do not expect technology to be demonstrated not to do harm, to improve things, etc. Certain types of social change are view with great analytical rigor or dismissed outright. A single example would be the way digital media is changing parenting, children's social skills, the way people view communication, dependence on devices, physical activity in chldren and more. This is a vast experiment and while some conservatives have expressed concern and others, like counterparts on the left, make sure to have a great deal of control over their own and their children's use of these media and devices, in general concervatives have made no concerted effort to see if this really vast and deep change in society is a good one.

I think there is also a similar non-conservativism related to war and business in the conservative community. Conservatives have tended to support specific wars much more that the Left and more than liberals. I am not sure they require the same types of evidential rigor they demand for things like gay rights.

As far as businesses, I wish conservatives had demanded that corporate charters continue to be considered priviledges, as they were originally, and to ask for the revoking of them when corporations show patterns of illegal activity.

Part of what I am saying is that it is not a general let's work with what we have unless it can be demonstrated rationally that the change is a good one. But that there are values and only some things actually, for conservatives, have to run a gauntlet of rationality. The values determine which things need to run the gauntlet and which things get a pass.

[Immanuel Can]

That wasn't a derogatory definition.

It was a wildly inaccurate and slanted one, then.

[Immanuel Can]

They do, of course. Conservatism is not objection to change; it's the advocating of principled, rational change.

But change itself? That's a constant.

Basically, you are attempting to climb upon a moral high horse...

Silly man. I'm just pointing out the facts.

[Immanuel Can]

It seems to me conservatives in general, with obvious individual exceptions, are not conservative in relation to technology.

That's more generally a human phenomenon. It's not specific to conservatives at all.

None of us really understands, when technology first appears, what it can do or will do. We have some ideas, but we're often wrong. So it's hard to reflect ethically on what the implications of a new technology will be.

My favourite case is the internet. When it was invented, it was for two purposes: the transfer of military information, and the sharing of medical information, apparently. We might ask ourselves, though: are those the two purposes for which the internet is most used now? Nope. Judged by its traffic, the internet is actually the most efficient system ever devised for the dissemination of advertising and pornography.

Did the creators understand that? No. Would ethical reflection have helped them to avoid it? No. Is the internet operating by rules we have chosen for it, or by a sort of rationale of its own, doing whatever it does quickly and well?

So neither liberals nor conservatives had any chance of taking a rational position on whether or not the internet should be allowed. Technology plays by its own rules.

Conservatives have tended to support specific wars much more that the Left and more than liberals.

With Trump versus Obama, it's quite reversed. Obama ramped up wars, and Trump dismantled them. Was Trump, then, more liberal than Obama?

That points to a particular problem with the terms "conservative" and "liberal": they're relative terms. One can be "conservative" with regard to killing babies, but also "liberal" about economic freedoms. One can be "liberal" about killing babies, but also "conservative" against free speech.

The two are really not very accurate as general terms: they're better as adjectives describing positions on particular issues.