In a previous post I summarized a book I read, "A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide To The 21st Century" by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying.
One of the central concepts in it is that of "Chesterton's Fence" which posits that when trying to enact reforms to a system, one should not do so until the existing state of affairs is fully understood.
How many traditions, rules, and cultural norms make little sense to us in the 21st century, but have deep roots in our history? They often exist to trigger specific behaviours even though the primary reason for these isn't apparent at first glance.
This is a corollary to the precautionary principle, which advises us to proceed with caution when developing new technologies and institutions, and warns us against their unintended consequences.
While the latter can be stifling if applied with too much zeal, the former pushes us to genuinely understand the systems that are considered for reform more carefully. In some sense, it exists in parallel to the Lindy effect, which indicates that the longer an artifact has been in existence, the longer it is likely to remain in existence, evidencing its robustness.
Robust things are such because they are useful and beneficial, therefore they should be considered carefully before being reformed.
In architecture, the last century has seen countless innovations and new products appear, at the expense of millennial, proven building traditions and while they're far from all being bad, it begs the question: how much knowledge has been lost and damage made as a result?