[squigz]

This is because "dismantle and replace" (or perhaps in other words, "defunding") is not a serious, viable solution to many of the societal issues we face.

Things were ruined slowly. They unfortunately will need to be fixed very slowly too.

[ianbutler]

I don't think that's going to work. We need broad political change and then that has to work rapidly to legislate this. I don't think slow and steady has done anything but lead to the decay our institutions over the last 70 years.

[zbentley]

I think that both this and GP are misguided. The pace of societal change in a given direction is neither inherently proportional to the pace of change in a different direction (GP) nor is the pace part of the direction (you).

You have to engage with the specific historical events/factors that led to the direction and the pace in order to change either. Broad statements like "society is big so change has to be slow" are just as unwarranted as "slow change results in decline".

There's a correct answer to "how quickly can change in a new direction be achieved". It will probably only become known after the fact. It will certainly not be model-able as a function with variables for "progressive or not" and "speed of change".

[ianbutler]

My argument is more along the lines of "slow change has resulted in decline observably for the time period I have observed it and we should try catalyzing something else"

I grant that whether that winds up being fast or slow even if the attempt is intended to be fast is out of my or anyone's hands for the most part as the system dampens that barring total collapse and chaos :P

[andrekandre]

  > They unfortunately will need to be fixed very slowly too.

this can work until you hit a crisis point; i think one issue is we are sliding faster in the wrong direction (increasing bureaucracy, increasing fees, wait times, overwork etc) so "slowly" can work but only if its "fast enough" if you get what i mean (people are really suffering out there)