Relativism and a slow changing world

We live in systems. Not those naturally occurring, evolution, ecosystems, laws of physics, chemistry etc. We live within those we create around us, an infrastructure of schools, hospitals; social systems, our norms and values, our friends and our beliefs (be that generally or religiously) economic systems, political systems. Hierarchy.

The point I'd like to pose is that we as humans we are prone to conservatism - that is - our systems take a long time to radically change. This occurs in an era of radical individualism and thus inevitably relativism.

The absence of any radical change is implicitly bad. Our systems have not occurred because of systematic rigorous testing to achieve any optimal degree of perfection, but have been developed slowly overtime. As you will realise by the end of this - all social change is slow.
The other reason why this lack of radical change is bad lies in the point earlier of relativism, largely from individualism. We all have different beliefs and values, not all of these are in line with the current systems. However this is balanced by the idea that the system we live within shapes our culture, and so beliefs and values.

This essay insofar has suggested that people all have different experiences, values and beliefs. It has been implied that the systems we live in shape that individualism, thus our values - "culture" may apply here. As these are self reinforcing then radical change is going to be severely hampered. Moreover, the plurality of people, with their own beliefs people will find dislikes in a system or have preferential systems with which they regard as better, or they believe in more.

Support and reinforcement from what i am saying comes from the CIA library.



Chapter 2 looks to psychology for how our perceptions are established and sustained.

A quote from here says:
"Mind-sets tend to be quick to form but resistant to change."

This establishes the idea that once we form our beliefs, they are difficult to change.



Any change economically, socially and politically will be slow.

Change would largely be catered by these conditions:

(a) Not only must people recognise what is wrong with a system to correct it, but they must be willing to change it.

This point has problems, 1.many people are not able to clearly "see" or understand a system. 2.They are not able to create points that would improve it. 3.As they live within that system it is likely their willingness for change is small.

(b)As these three systems are plurality systems (by that i mean, they are systems that an enormously large amount of people use) so (a) must occur within more than one person. There must be enough people to bring about that change.

(c)They must have some form of similarity, agreement or recognition of problems. This is hindered by 2. and 3.

(a)and (b) and (c)are not likely to occur.

However this does not have to be the case.
If (a) occurs then (b) follows. I (a) and (b) it is likely (c) follows.

Knowing this, how do we incur radical change?
Before we begin... It might be prudent to say that generating change is as difficult as suggested above. More so when your trying to change the speed that things change.

The answer comes from looking at our formula. If we modify (a) and it's associated problems then (b) and (c) are more likely to follow.

The fastest way for (a) to change the economic and political world would be over the internet. On tap knowledge and views. Lighting fast technology and coordination.

Socially this is already achieved, the concept of memes largely transfers the idea of an evolutionary model into culture and what makes up the culture. Google it, it is a fascinating social science.

Politically there are more problems to address. Mostly, the western system is a representative democracy with a narrow remit taken over by an agenda which is often dominated by the prime minister (in the uk) or the president (as of the us) and large lobbying groups or interest groups. It is certainly the case in the UK and US that those political parties who gain power are unlikely to change it to a system where they lose it.
The biggest problem of radical political change aside from the above are the voters. Their inability to boycott the system or vote for parties that wish to cater change. Moreover (b) applies here especially in the context of 3.

In short, the current layout of those two systems does not favour change.

for the political system to embrace change a higher level of political awareness is needed from the public. And votes need to be proportional towards the power of parties. (however this should be approached with caution because of 1, and 3.) and parties need to be much more transparent with their objectives.
Either this form of proportional democracy allows for greater change or...
a direct democracy. The most powerful medium for expressing political views, choosing difficult decisions, building policy etc. is the internet. Unhampered open sourced policy created for and by the public on an easy and factually correct format.
Direct democracy can be realised through the internet.



lastly concerning the economic system.

A larger awareness is need of the economic system for (a) to ever happen.
As this system affects every one's life it must change within the political system t be legitimate. The economic systems must change due to informed representative decision making.
Again, this is limited by 1. and 3.

so in conclusion. ...and as im getting restless as usual..

The internet should be embraced for (a) to occur.