Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tian Wen's avatar

> 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.

Great quote!

To me that’s a reason to strive for cognitive diversity. I may not understand the usefulness of fence A but you might understand it; and vice versa for fence B. It’s only by working together that we can understand which fences are still useful.

That’s my concern with some climate activists. They want to clear fences (eg no more drilling) but I’m not sure they’re understand why they exist (eg nitrogen fertilizers and food security). Worse, they seem intent on limiting the range of viewpoints, for instance many are incensed that COP28 is held in the UAE.

> This of it this way

Typo?

Expand full comment
Bill Coletti's avatar

Great post. I am thinking about the old Zuckerberg/ FB saw about "move fast and break thing." Chesterton's Fence promotes a more cautious and reflective approach, Zuckerberg's concept encouraged a dynamic and iterative mindset. Fences prioritize understanding and preserving existing structures, whereas Zuck focuses on pushing boundaries and embracing change. I think it is great to be able to hold both ideas in tension and slowly create gates.

NB - I think Zuck and FB have matured their thinking and C Fences are all over FB nowadays.

So - one vote PRO Fences.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts