Randomness of Change

One of the main tenets of modern capitalist philosophy is to let every person seek his own gains and rest assured that the whole human civilization will progress as a result. While this may be true in aggregate and average terms, there are two levels where it needs to be analyzed whether we make real progress and not aggregate material progress alone. One, is the attainment of psychological satisfaction which includes emotional and intellectual well being. In other words, the level of happiness, both at aggregate and individual levels. Two, is the nature of the competition between individuals and the human values manifested in human interactions on the ground. Since humans are such emotional species, it is necessary that human happiness and feeling of satisfaction be accounted for into economics and we have more civilized economic models.

Of course it is easier said than done. And besides, the economically powerful, sitting at the peaks of current hierarchies as defined by current models exercise all their powers to keep things in ways that best serve them. And the poor, unhappy masses are still incapable of taking them out. Coz democracy in real world is the weakest approach of extracting what one wants from the system. We've seen it fill Indian political system with criminals whom nobody likes, yet we elect them through democratic election process, where candidates get elected through simple majority albeit by getting small percentage of votes coz there are so many parties contesting, and then we have an absolute majority group of such minority voted elected representatives together forming the government, where the very reason most guys from that group get together is just so that they get to be part of the government and share the loot that's the implicit purpose of forming governments in India.

I don't know how things will change in India and elsewhere - of course different problems with different intensities in different places, mostly coz of the differences in respective prevalent cultures that define the way people think and behave. And India is doing terribly. I often conclude, although with lot of reluctance and embarrassment, that our culture sucks, specifically the cultural elements that matter most in our lives. Of course we have great temples, music, dance and cuisine, but in terms of human values, we are terrible. Aspects of culture which define how we treat each other are more important than art forms and food. And it's these cultural aspects which set the context for people with certain traits and engaging in certain kinds of actions to rise to seats of power. And it's the powerful that choose what's to be done from the options that they have. Sometimes it's with the consensus with the other powerful guys, so as to ensure the cartel is safe. By peaceful means, the common man can just make some noise and hope to be heard. By aggressive means, violent or non-violent, the common man can replace the cartel with some other cartel and hope it works for his interests. But in a society that is defined by certain values, power just differentiates between the haves and have-nots. Once a have-not becomes a have, he'll become who he always hated when he was a have-not.

Therefore, we are talking about cultural transformation. Which is impossible in the short term. And in the long term, it is impossible to transform culture in a specific direction one wants. And who is that one anyway? It is random, chaotic, yet evolving. So little, local disruptions are all one can create and hope that things fall in place in the long broad term to lead to change that one had strived for in his small lifetime and which was carried forward by other small disruptions which may or may not have culminated into large revolutions.

I could not reach a definite conclusion on how our models can be transformed to achieve what is best for the human kind. I think that is because it is not totally in our hands. We can only demand for it, may be mobilize people and resources too, and create minor local short-term impact, be optimistic that many more would see value in it and strive for similar change after our lifetime, and hope that in a few hundred years things would be different.

But that leaves me with another question - what is the incentive for a human being to strive for change of such nature which he would not experience or benefit from in his own lifetime? Why should someone screw his own life to achieve something for future generations? There are many who seem to have done that. But it's also possible that they were actually not screwing their lives but were enjoying what they were doing, and that drove them to it, and the long-term future-generations impact was not really a driving force. Or another possibility is the hope that things will change sooner than they do, the stupid mind hoping against hope. Or yet another possibility is the foolish belief that one is going to live forever. And then, there might be other guys working equally hard for another change that might be totally contradictory or nullifying what one is fighting for. Well, humans are crazy! We end up having something we never imagined and imagining something we'd never have...

Note: Masculine forms like he, his, guys, etc. have been used just for ease of writing. They apply to both men and women, without meaning any difference whatsoever.