Because I occasionally don't respect the restraints that tend to exist in democratic societies when it comes to entrenched regulation & interests vs innovation (or really anything new or different), which frequently dramatically slow down progress (see: zoning law abuse, or the FDA's countless abuses or otherwise slow & meandering approach (what I call backwards), or the present US healthcare system (vast entrenched interests, fear of change, etc)). That is, it's my opinion that that restraint is what always must be pushed back against to generate any positive change in any culture or society at any point in history. Failure to push in this regard, guarantees stagnation.
The vast majority - in my opinion - overwhelmingly tend toward being either aggressively anti-change, or they're at best very cautious about it. That has been demonstrated non-stop throughout history with practically every step forward in technology for example. It may even be a beneficial evolutionary attribute for the survival of humanity. I don't belong to the dislikes change group, my personality type is to push. That's the honest answer.
Am I biased because of my own world-view or personality type? No doubt to one extent or another. I'm not advocating for chaos or anarchy though; rather, I'm advocating for constantly testing assumed or entrenched notions/boundaries, as a means to find out if there is new progress to be found there. My opinion is that there's almost always progress to be found in challenging such, with some areas blatantly worth focusing on more than others (due to favorable upside vs downside risk ratio). If you ask permission first every time you attempt to find progress at the edge of what a society presently finds comfortable, you're not likely to get very far.