Storm ship Alabama
Sep. 5th, 2005 07:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksThere was a rip of thunder in the middle of last night that sounded like a bomb going off. And I also have to assume that there was some kind of electrical power surge, because my bedside clock moved forward an hour. I listened to the radio for a full three minutes before I realized it was 4.35am, not 5.35am as my clock assured me. Irritating.
++++
I'm going to have to cut back on the lengthy posts here; with the new writing gig, I basically don't have any time for anything for the next few days. Come the weekend things will ease up (very slightly).
I enjoyed talking to the Youngster yesterday. Although I disagree with many of his thoughts (that anyone could disagree with David's conclusions never ceases to amaze him, but, there you go), he will always argue his case cogently.
Anyway, we got onto one American's theory/observation that we spend too much time these days trying to preserve things. Or, in another sense, "to encourage stability" in the world. This American's theory is that instability is good. My observation was that many Americans are great fans of change and instability, so long as it doesn;t affect them. A kind of academic nimbyism.
But it did get me thinking. Because, in one sense -- for the overall increased betterment of the human race, increased instability is good. In a Benthamite sense, you should back it, because progress is only achieved through change.
But, from the individual's point of view, instability is frequently bad. The Enclosure Laws might have been good in the long run, but tell that to the peasant who has lost the land on which he kept is two sheep, three ducks and a pig. It's a common mistake of politicians (and some economists) that the nation is the individual writ large -- that what is sensible for the individual to do must, by definition, be sensible for 50m individuals to do in concert. The instability/stability dichotomy is one example of where this is not true.
++++
I'm going to have to cut back on the lengthy posts here; with the new writing gig, I basically don't have any time for anything for the next few days. Come the weekend things will ease up (very slightly).
I enjoyed talking to the Youngster yesterday. Although I disagree with many of his thoughts (that anyone could disagree with David's conclusions never ceases to amaze him, but, there you go), he will always argue his case cogently.
Anyway, we got onto one American's theory/observation that we spend too much time these days trying to preserve things. Or, in another sense, "to encourage stability" in the world. This American's theory is that instability is good. My observation was that many Americans are great fans of change and instability, so long as it doesn;t affect them. A kind of academic nimbyism.
But it did get me thinking. Because, in one sense -- for the overall increased betterment of the human race, increased instability is good. In a Benthamite sense, you should back it, because progress is only achieved through change.
But, from the individual's point of view, instability is frequently bad. The Enclosure Laws might have been good in the long run, but tell that to the peasant who has lost the land on which he kept is two sheep, three ducks and a pig. It's a common mistake of politicians (and some economists) that the nation is the individual writ large -- that what is sensible for the individual to do must, by definition, be sensible for 50m individuals to do in concert. The instability/stability dichotomy is one example of where this is not true.
