If you think of the status quo as inertia, then physics tells us a
force (which I'm gonna call conflict) is required to create change.
In my work career I've seen this over and over. Those who are
guarding the status quo do not go gently in a new direction, even if
that direction is clearly better. I remember how legal secretaries
at the law firm I worked for early in my career fought the advent of
desktop PCs (they knew how to be productive with IBM Selectric
typewriters and the Wang word processor down the hall was a
specialized piece of equipment). Time and again I've seen there's
always *somebody* profiting from the status quo who believes they
have to guard against changes.
Of course I won't even start commenting about Sun and Java ;-).
Danese
On Jun 22, 2008, at 5:47 AM, Gautam John wrote:
Hello!
Here's a thought:
Is conflict necessary for progress? Or is it an impediment? Would
individuals be able to reach their fullest levels of potential in the
absence of conflict or is conflict necessary to maximise potential,
individual and social?
I'm tending towards conflict as a requirement for change, growth and
potential optimisation.
As an aside, I heard a great line - It's not the environment that
needs to be saved, it's us.
I suppose that's true. The environment, in some way or form will
survive, it's us and our lifestyle that's endangered. Is humanity a
virus?
-Gautam
--
Please read our new blog at:
http://blog.prathambooks.org/
