When I first heard this, it came up in an engineering discussion, where pulling out + replacing the thing was much lower cost than figuring out exactly what the person that implemented it was smoking.
Since the cost of removing + reinstalling a gate is also much lower than the cost of Chesterson's proposed historical wankery, I assumed I was getting an all clear to do my job.
I've also encountered this sort of wrong-think when trying to deal with planning commissions in the SF Bay Area.
Anyway, the Simple Sabotage Field Manual goes into more detail if you'd like to implement Chesterson's Fence. It worked well in WWII, so I guess they were on to something. Page 28, points 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are all good generaly ways to put the article into practice. If you're in a management position, the next section, points 11-13 are also good approaches. However, the entire 36 page book is worth a careful read:
The point is to take a pause to consider it. People are generally quick to throw things out or make commitments without thinking it through, see it all the time
It sounds like your team considered it - we can’t see an obvious why, it’s much easier to replace, and if there’s a second order consequence we will learn
No, that is not the point. You are putting words into Chesterton's mouth.
In his scenario, 100% of the people entrusted to road and fence maintenance considered keeping the fence and concluded it should be torn down. The people that installed it didn't think it was important enough to document its reason for existing.
The only person advocating for its continued existence is a philosopher with no apparent expertise in fence maintenance, or any specific knowledge about the fence in question. He is demanding the proponents of tearing down the fence produce evidence from the known-lost historical record, and then to use that evidence (and only it) to litigate for removal of the fence.
In Chesterton's fable the people entrusted to road and fence maintenance couldn't find a reason for the fence while being in a world with the fence. Chesterton argues to try look at it from the world without the fence. If that has been done, fine, tear it down. If the total risk is miniscule, bulldoze it immediately. But, be aware that the risk for a vc funded startup might be tiny, compared to the risk of changing the rules of society.
Wow. I'm not certain whether you're just being facetious, but you...probably shouldn't accuse others of putting words into Chesterton's mouth. You're suffocating him with what you've stuffed in there.
Since the cost of removing + reinstalling a gate is also much lower than the cost of Chesterson's proposed historical wankery, I assumed I was getting an all clear to do my job.
I've also encountered this sort of wrong-think when trying to deal with planning commissions in the SF Bay Area.
Anyway, the Simple Sabotage Field Manual goes into more detail if you'd like to implement Chesterson's Fence. It worked well in WWII, so I guess they were on to something. Page 28, points 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are all good generaly ways to put the article into practice. If you're in a management position, the next section, points 11-13 are also good approaches. However, the entire 36 page book is worth a careful read:
https://archive.org/details/SimpleSabotageFieldManualStrateg...