TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Conservatism is the ultimate opposition to progress.

A reactionary stance to change limits the potential for progress more than a proactive stance. An example (although not the centre of the argument) being drugs: being reactive i.e placing laws and trying to force the problem backwards wouldn't work as well as allowing the use of drugs within reason and with reasonable restrictions as this would eliminate a source of funding for many of the world's gangs and ultimately increase global security. (Again this example shouldn't be the main focus of the argument/idea)

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Dec 13 2012: Narrow mindedness certainly but I would assert that being reactionary (that is, to try and force the problem backwards) is more inhibiting than being proactive: moving the goalposts so that the problem is no longer a problem.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.