Why “Incremental Change” Is Worse Than No Change At All

Another reason why the so-called “centrists” pose such a grave threat to our world is because their platform of slow, moderate, incremental change is actually worse than no change at all.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/07/15/why-incremental-change-is-worse-than-no-change-at-all/#comments

I would argue with your premise on the basis that it is predicated on a Change to something else, which, it is assumed will provide an improvement. Unless of course, you are saying a change to something far worse, is better than no change at all.

Calling the Neo-Liberal Washington Consensus view, ( Centrist). I think you do another disservice to the required level of political consciousness-raising required to get the ( Excluded Middle, Silent Majority, Precariat) to move to action through the Ballot box from the local level up.

Chesterton’s fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. The quotation is from G. K. Chesterton’s 1929 book The Thing, in the chapter entitled “The Drift from Domesticity”:

Chestertons fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”[1]

Chesterton’s admonition should first be understood within his own historical context, as a response to certain socialists and reformers of his time (e.g. George Bernard Shaw).

As usual, you make a large assumption regarding “The Settled Science” this is an issue for Environmentalists such as myself, and # WrongKindofGreen, in that the envisioned something else, in the Green New Deal and Modern Monetary Theory, is Authoritarian Command and Control Based. In yesterday article you put it this way.

“A movement towards true health will look like everyone waking up to the reality that we’re all being driven toward extinction via climate collapse or nuclear war by a ruling class who used propaganda to trick us into thinking that its suicidal trajectory was the moderate path. Obviously, when we create our new model we won’t all agree with each other about the best direction to take it, but we’ve got to overhaul the old one first.”

 

Clive Lord is a founder member and current Member of the Green Party of England and Wales, Two recent blog posts of Clives deserve attention, on this point. i.e Settled Seance and WHator which “Something must be done?”

AN OPEN LETTER TO GEORGE MONBIOT
07/07/2019 · by Clive Lord

https://clivelord.wordpress.com/2019/07/07/an-open-letter-to-george-monbiot/

I listened to the founder members explaining the MIT report Limits to Growth. The gist was that although economic growth had given us the modern world, it had to stop, before it trashed the ecosphere. I agreed with every word.

But I had a discussion with one of the founders before I left, which went as follows:

Me: You are proposing a recession, possibly deep, and possibly long term. Recessions produce hardship. What if people riot because of shortages?

Founder Member: We shall call it a steady-state economy. But if necessary, Martial Law. You have just come 100 miles to agree with us, right? So do you agree that if we have to shoot a few people in the street to get through the transition, that will be rather less nasty than what will happen if we do nothing? If you have a better idea, you had better come up with it fast.

and this one just yesterday.

WHO IS RIGHT, SANDY OR ME?
https://clivelord.wordpress.com/2019/07/14/who-is-right-sandy-or-me/
14/07/2019 · by Clive Lord · Bookmark the permalink. ·

Sandy Irvine tells me I am wrong, and he is one of a chorus who cannot see how the universal basic income (UBI) could have forestalled ecological meltdown, and even now could ameliorate the worst effects. Why pick on Sandy? he is the only one who takes me seriously enough to ask me to shut up.

I do have some support – thank you Roger Lewis – but none from anyone with a media presence. I have a narrative, which to my unusual brain remains sound, and questions which Sandy has not answered to my satisfaction.

This has suddenly become urgent, as next Tuesday (I write on Sunday) I shall try to convince a Citizens’ Assembly of the case for the UBI, as part of an XR action in central Leeds. Do I have a crucial insight, or am I suffering from a psychotic delusion?

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/07/13/mainstream-centrists-pose-the-greatest-ideological-threat-to-us-all/#respond

“A movement towards true health will look like everyone waking up to the reality that we’re all being driven toward extinction via climate collapse or nuclear war by a ruling class who used propaganda to trick us into thinking that its suicidal trajectory was the moderate path. Obviously, when we create our new model we won’t all agree with each other about the best direction to take it, but we’ve got to overhaul the old one first.”

Back to your article yesterday

https://twitter.com/aplusk/status/1021409519098769408

23

Just sending out a morning shout to the men and woman of the intelligence community that keep us safe and protect our country. #gratitude #ty pic.twitter.com/Avi220aBh7

— ashton kutcher (@aplusk) July 23, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

 

“Extinction via Climate Collapse “, This part of the premise or Statement is much weaker than this part “Or Nuclear War“. The New Cold War which is uncomfortably close to the perpetual war in 1984 described by Orwell in 1984, between, Oceania, Eurasia and East Asia.

So, Caitlin, I say this to Both You and My friend, Clive Lord.

You are both right and both wrong depending on your Starting assumptions its a question of double hermeneutics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_hermeneutic

 

Reblogging as Comment at CLive Lords Blog, My Comments have mixed success in clearing moderation or the WWW- Spam-real argumentation Filters.