Change can amount of entropy, decay, dereliction and degeneration, in fact it can be enough unmitigated change which results catastrophic upheavels or revolutions (and then counter-revolutions). Even where the change has begun or is being powered forward with the very best of intentions, unanticipated consequences are always part and parcel of the process because fans of the desired change are not going to be too self-critical or wary about the proposed change itself. Incremental and progressive change is never incremental and progressive change because those proposing the changes have serious doubts about how effacious or worthy their proposed changes are but because that change is being in some way resisted by those who still do.
I also would question why and with what reason change is always considered inevitable and desirable, the essential task of any society is the transmit the experience and learning of one generation to the next, to reproduce itself and provide a legacy to future generations. Now I will say that there is the possibility that new and fresh insights reveal oppression within traditional practices and norms but that is something which has to be seriously questioned too.
In even a legitimate process of change informed by decent insights with viable and clear objectives accompanied by timescales and tests you are clearly accepting that a generation of indviduals will be denied the experiences of their predecessors growing up and living their lives.
There was a time this was a lot easier to decide, I would suggest, than now, the benefits outweighed the costs or risks, although I am unsure that this remains the case, at least in terms of the cultural norms which I consider most contested in the public arena presently.