I agree that it’s an argument that can be used in favor of status quo in a lot of situations (it’s similar to Chesterton’s Fence), but it won’t apply as strongly; the argument mostly requires that changing the status quo disrupts system that:
Impact human welfare a lot, and
Are slow to re-stabilize
… so a good argument can be made that climate does that, but the effect is less strong for national politics, and even less strong for things like corporate policies, roles inside a family, etc.
it’s an argument that can be used in favor of status quo in a lot of situations..., but it won’t apply as strongly
Why not?
Example: Russia. The collapse of the USSR both impacted human welfare a lot and the society was slow to re-stablize. Or how about independence wars or revolutions in general?
The problem with your argument in meta terms is that it discounts the long-term utility too much in comparison with the short-term utility.
Or how about independence wars or revolutions in general?
You mean, those things that almost always increase human misery and fail to accomplish their objectives? Aside from the Americans, whose revolution was fundamentally very conservative(it was based on the rights of Englishmen as understood in the time of their grandfathers more than anything), revolutions are notoriously bad ideas.
It’s an effect that should be taken into account in a broad array of situations. Emile didn’t say that it was an overwhelmingly powerful argument in all situations, nor did she come a little bit close to implying it.
This actually looks like a fully general argument if favor of any status quo.
This makes no sense as a criticism unless you think it’s claimed to be very powerful. If it can be weak, then sure, it’s a fully general argument in favor of any status quo, and that’s A-OK, and it’s fairly obviously A-OK, so what are you complaining about?
(this was edited to completely replace its contents)
This actually looks like a fully general argument if favor of any status quo.
Are you saying my argument proves too much?
I agree that it’s an argument that can be used in favor of status quo in a lot of situations (it’s similar to Chesterton’s Fence), but it won’t apply as strongly; the argument mostly requires that changing the status quo disrupts system that:
Impact human welfare a lot, and
Are slow to re-stabilize
… so a good argument can be made that climate does that, but the effect is less strong for national politics, and even less strong for things like corporate policies, roles inside a family, etc.
I am saying its overly broad.
Why not?
Example: Russia. The collapse of the USSR both impacted human welfare a lot and the society was slow to re-stablize. Or how about independence wars or revolutions in general?
The problem with your argument in meta terms is that it discounts the long-term utility too much in comparison with the short-term utility.
You mean, those things that almost always increase human misery and fail to accomplish their objectives? Aside from the Americans, whose revolution was fundamentally very conservative(it was based on the rights of Englishmen as understood in the time of their grandfathers more than anything), revolutions are notoriously bad ideas.
Those things which move history forward in bloody spurts and zigzags, yes.
It’s an effect that should be taken into account in a broad array of situations. Emile didn’t say that it was an overwhelmingly powerful argument in all situations, nor did she come a little bit close to implying it.
...and nor did I criticize it for that.
So where did this whole idea come from?
This makes no sense as a criticism unless you think it’s claimed to be very powerful. If it can be weak, then sure, it’s a fully general argument in favor of any status quo, and that’s A-OK, and it’s fairly obviously A-OK, so what are you complaining about?
(this was edited to completely replace its contents)