Now, I know that at this moment you thinking of a thousand reasons for change and many of them are great. For example, something is no longer effective, such as the need for the creation of new antibiotics. Or, something better has come along, such as led screens for computers. Or, circumstances have forced a change, such as the over harvesting of Brazilian rosewood forcing guitar builders to look for alternatives. Or, something is unacceptable like the death every 20 seconds of a child due to contaminated water.
Now, it would seem reasonable that people wouldn't resist or oppose these kind of changes, but that is not the case. There is no change no matter how valid or noble that someone doesn't resist.
At the moment of this writing, the leaders of Israel and Palestine are meeting in Washington to discuss peace and there is huge opposition to these talks by a wide range of interests. You would think something as precious as peace would be fully supported, but it is not. You can argue that the opposition to these peace talks comes, because there are great complications accompanying the talks - the complications of land, people, religion, rights, power, pride, etc., and you would be right. And even though most of those who oppose the talks would state that they too desire peace, they are not willing to compromise, or set aside, or negotiate their "complications" in order to achieve peace. The status quo is preferred over the risk of peace.
So, back to my question, "Why Change?" After all the status quo is comfortable, known, beneficial to some, easier, seemingly less risky and besides, who can guarantee that the change will work? No matter what the change, someone will be upset, so why create a problem? Wouldn't it be better just to manage the present circumstance?
No comments:
Post a Comment