Whatever “conservatism” is, it does not involve the conservation of a stable climate, or the polar ice caps, or the coral reefs, or the global food supply.
Whatever “conservatism” is, it does not involve the conservation of a stable climate, or the polar ice caps, or the coral reefs, or the global food supply.
Conservatism may look irrational, outdated and destructive. In fact I’m fairly confident it is all those things *right now * in many places.
Look bigger though, imagine why it exists.
It is the natural end point of any push for change. Any system that manifests in the world will inevitably be challenged by further future. Each revolution is faced with the next one.
It is inevitable that when a system comes to dominance there are those who wish to preserve and conserve it, all the energy that was put into change is focused on conserving the system.
The problem is the context keeps changing and the revolution never fits reality for long.
Im still trying to work out a functional public-serving system of government.
If the system can adjust to the changing needs of the public, then policy can be modified while retaining the system.
Once the system stops producing public-serving policy, that’s government failure (such as regulatory capture), and then the system needs to be adjusted.
When the system fails to serve public interests more than it serves other interests (say, elite interests) then it sucks and needs to be changed at the systemic level.
I’m pretty sure Marx goes through this in Das Kapital