a bent fork?
- We live in a world unlike anything that humankind had seen or dreamt of in the past. In this new world we are facing new problems that we must meet with new solutions. The past had old problems, old problems that have old solutions, and old solutions cannot help us solve new problems. The past is irrelevant, concentrate on the present.
- The world has to be the way it is, it has always been this way and nothing you can do can substantially change it. If you think otherwise you are a political idealist and can be safely ignored because you are ignoring reality. People tried to change the world in the past, it did not work then and it will not work now.
(If anyone actually believes either of the above sentiments and can give better expression to them, then please do so and I shall amend my versions accordingly.)
7 comments:
Regarding the first, I think the most significant difference is how 'small' the world now is — how easy and instantaneous communication is between previously distant countries and cultures.
Regarding the second, I think Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi are good examples of political idealists who managed to build enough momentum to change the world.
I don't think a person can change the world. One person is too small. But people? That's a different story. A lot of people doing a lot of small things can achieve a lot.
Why is there this focus on trying to save the world? It's so big. We each have our own little piece, and that's enough. Maybe if we just did our bit, and left others to theirs, the world would be a better place?
Gandhi and Luther King are all very well, but they are leaders. Leaders who would be nothing without followers, far more followers than leaders. Perhaps we ought to consider followship as well as leadership to be important? I don't know. But I do think we should appreciate the large effect a lot of small efforts can have.
I think neither of the two points I outlined is very convincing. However, I do think that they are positions held by a significant proportion of people, often simultaneously. The point of expressing them both together was to highlight the contradiction between them.
Nato: Why focus on saving the world? Because the world is in trouble, not you, or I, or any other particular individual. In addition, I see no reason why each of us individually concentrating on our own bit would culminate in anything positive for the world.
Gandhi and MLK jr. were pretty awesome people, as were the grass roots people involved in those movements.
I may have overstated the value of small contributions. So, to revise my argument:
Grass root support is necessary for large scale change, but may not be sufficent for large scale change. Leadership may be required to precipitate change, but inevetibly it will have to involve the a lot of contributions from people doing their bit.
Hence, grass root contributions to changing the world ought to be emphasized, especially as the majority of people are going to make these contributions, while only a few are going to be the leaders.
If this doesn't apply to saving the world from trouble, I am puzzled - what exactly are you saving the world from?
[planning on deleting the immediatly previous comment, because this should be clearer]
I agree with what you are saying (i think). The majority of people will be involved in grass roots movements, and that will be the focus of any successful change on a global scale.
The only part of your original comment that I was concerned about was your suggestion that “Maybe if we just did our bit, and left others to theirs, the world would be a better place?” I think small local communities really need to be where the movement is organised and takes place. To me, ‘leaving others to theirs’ suggests a lack of community and a lack of organisation. I am sure you agree that both of these would pose serious threats to the likelihood of any significant change.
Yep, I'm pretty much in agreement.
People obviously can't do everything, so they have to focus on their little bits, and co-operate with others doing theirs.
Post a Comment