This view is not only ignorant, I think it is dangerous.
We should only trust institutions that are capable of meeting the real challenges we face today. But neither the problems of hosting 6->9 billion people on earth nor figuring out how to capitalize on the vast knowledge we've gained over just the past 100 years were anticipated by existing institutions.
We don't have longstanding traditions around the roles of 'internet entrepreneur' or the 'genetic programmer'. Why? Because they're not old enough; they haven't been around long enough for a halo of rich meaning and culture to form around them. The real economic value (let alone environmental/social value) of modern roles have not had time to become embedded in longstanding tradition.
If we make decisions based on tradition, we blind ourselves to everything that is made possible by the unique place in history we find ourselves in. I think it's a dangerous time to do so. You cannot live as though nuclear warheads have not been invented, just because it feels good to respect old institutions. You cannot live as though there are 500 million people on the planet, when there are 6 billion, just because it feels good to follow in the footsteps of your forefathers.
Human culture does a fantastic job of making people feel important by building rich traditions around important roles in society. For 99% of human history that was probably very useful; most of the time it made sense to adapt to existing institutions, because they were likely to be around for the rest of your life. But that's no longer true.
I think "life" asks us to wake up and smell the coffee. Neither the problems we face today nor the tools that may solve them are embedded in tradition and institution. The slower we are to adapt, the longer we remain stuck on old habits, the more harm we'll cause by pouring energy into systems designed to solve yesterday's problems.
We should only trust institutions that are capable of meeting the real challenges we face today. But neither the problems of hosting 6->9 billion people on earth nor figuring out how to capitalize on the vast knowledge we've gained over just the past 100 years were anticipated by existing institutions.
We don't have longstanding traditions around the roles of 'internet entrepreneur' or the 'genetic programmer'. Why? Because they're not old enough; they haven't been around long enough for a halo of rich meaning and culture to form around them. The real economic value (let alone environmental/social value) of modern roles have not had time to become embedded in longstanding tradition.
If we make decisions based on tradition, we blind ourselves to everything that is made possible by the unique place in history we find ourselves in. I think it's a dangerous time to do so. You cannot live as though nuclear warheads have not been invented, just because it feels good to respect old institutions. You cannot live as though there are 500 million people on the planet, when there are 6 billion, just because it feels good to follow in the footsteps of your forefathers.
Human culture does a fantastic job of making people feel important by building rich traditions around important roles in society. For 99% of human history that was probably very useful; most of the time it made sense to adapt to existing institutions, because they were likely to be around for the rest of your life. But that's no longer true.
I think "life" asks us to wake up and smell the coffee. Neither the problems we face today nor the tools that may solve them are embedded in tradition and institution. The slower we are to adapt, the longer we remain stuck on old habits, the more harm we'll cause by pouring energy into systems designed to solve yesterday's problems.