Change

Many people make the infuriating assumption that change is always good. Although this may seem to be true, we should always remind ourselves that change can also be defined as change in the opposite direction. This is a very important topic to go over especially when the premise of many potential leaders is to be harbingers of change.

Without a doubt, change is inevitable. So we can only hope that change is always for the better. But, our hopes are never always the case as well. The only consistency is that change will always occur. The only debate is whether change is necessary or not.

Whenever a change is made in a system, there is always an advantage and a disadvantage. Arguably, the best way is to find an equilibrium, where the advantage is at a maximum, and the disadvantage, a minimum. Therefore, every single change needs to be thought out carefully. Every purpose of the present and potential future weighed in a calculation. The very reason why change in a large system is always slow.

There are cases where a large system is always threatened to be replaced entirely, the ultimate change. This is when the debate over change becomes completely ridiculous.

Large systems, such as governments, takes a lot of effort to build, and simply because one is dissatisfied with how a simple element of the system works, one would support a party to completely dismantle it? Not only is it ridiculous to destroy a system, rendering the initial effort in vain, to build a suitable system to act in stead of the former would take more effort, probably more time.

My concluding note is: when dissatisfied with a single, few, or be it MOST of the elements of a system, campaign against said elements, and not against the entire system. Replace only what need be replace and retain what satisfies.