One of the reasons that I am a traditionalist.
Please note: this does not mean that traditional societies were, or healthy societies ought to be, static or stagnant. There was, is, and ought to be a dynamic equilibrium, incorporating ebb and flow, travel and interchange, etc.
But what is rejected – and what I reject – is the absurd notion that “change is good,” that change for its own sake should be the norm, and the preferred option.
Change is not good! Not intrinsically. Good change can be good, but the burden of proof is on those who desire the change, to demonstrate how and why it will be good, and that the difficulties and challenges that accompany it – for there will always be those – do not outweigh the benefits.
Stability, balance, equilibrium: these are the things that make for stable, peaceful, and long-lasting societies. Without a great deal of caution and care, change can result in chaos, and chaos is more likely to be destructive than otherwise.