So about the conservative cause

Rules must be obeyed. Agree? Except, of course, when they shouldn't be. Most of what we think of as advances have happened because some cocksure renegades decided to run some verboten experiments. Before Werener von Braun, there was Goddard. But these mavericks, these intellectual outliers, these geniuses can only survive in contrast to a general population who they prolly find dull and soporific. The price that society pays for every genius is prolly a serial killer - but that is a price that we cannot not pay. Somehow, we have to structure ourselves that the smart ones, the game changers can be identified early and nurtured - and that the violent ones can also be identified early and helped. And of course, Gawd help us if the two are the same. But this has to be done, for all of progress depends on the really smart ones. The rest of us usually work to fill in the blanks. So there we have it - society needs to make room for its geniuses. Our survival depends on it.

Which brings us to the conservative agenda. Nowhere are the two anchors of conservatism tied together more deceptively than in the US of A. For some reason, economic conservatism appears to be linked to social conservatism. I say appears to be, for the relentless upward flow of capital is not being conservative. What it is is counter-thermodynamic, and very, very pernicious. But forgive me, for I have not the correct technical vocabulary to talk of such matters, just feelings about what is right and what is not.

I am more concerned by the social conservatism that appears to be lumped together with the economic package. This is a throwback to simple village-tribal societies which exist at the subsistence-farming level. Certainly, in that context, an immensely authoritative central figure is not a bad thing. Yes, you must obey the village elders, for they constitute the sum total of generational wisdom. But mankind as we are today is somewhat far from such a model of governance. What works, and works well for small communities in isolation is scarcely a viable structure for a globe girdling civilization with powers which would appear indistinguishable from witchcraft in the eyes of those early village elders.

Today, humans have the economic surplus needed to support investments in endeavours which may or may not have a tangible return. Some such investments are the immediately useful, such as the Three Gorges. Some others, less so- but serve as cheerleaders for much greater things to come. Case in point, our favourite new explorer - Curiosity. Indeed, we have the capacity to sit back and be entertained by the likes of reality TV stars. The question of survival is moot - barring another asteroid, or a bloody huge methane burp from under the Tundra - we will most likely make it. 

But in order to make it, we do need those smart ones. And to identify them, we need to loosen up as a society. The resilience that comes from a large and diverse population will help us survive where smaller and more homogeneous groups would not and did not. That is a lesson worth remembering. 

So the prescription: let people be.