Nathan_Myers comments on Guardians of the Gene Pool - Less Wrong

25 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 16 December 2007 08:08PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (73)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Nathan_Myers 17 December 2007 06:17:10PM 0 points [-]

Wouldn't that make them "bio-reactionaries" or "bio-romantics"? Or has the equation of "conservatism" (which once denoted an inclination to preserve the status quo) with "reactionism" (desire to re-instate the status quo ante), "romanticism" (promotion of some vanished, idealized past), or raw fascism (power is its own logic) pervaded even these hallowed halls? Do we have a name for what was once called conservatism, or does the concept no longer have any meaningful referent?

Comment author: pnrjulius 09 June 2012 02:37:08AM 0 points [-]

Part of the problem is that reactionaries call themselves "conservative" even though, you're right, they really aren't.

In the US, equal rights for women is really a conservative idea in the original sense, because it's something that our culture has already mostly accepted. People arguing against it aren't conserving the status quo, they are harkening back to some bygone halycon era.

But think of how weird it sounds to say that feminists are conservative! So I think the term in practice has moved away from its original etymological meaning.