Is all change necessarily progress?
Which groups benefit from changes? Which do not? Best answer goes to the person who goes into a little more detail than "yes" or "no"
- 3 years agoFavorite Answer
The way you've asked this question is to big to just answer with a yes or no. However, the way you've asked the question is a little to vague to provide a meaningful answer that carries an unnecessarily wide scope. I would think it obvious that change isn't always positive progress. A cancer patient with a benign tumor doesn't want to find our the change in the tumor has become malignant. Change? Yes! Progressive? Yes! Good? Uhnuh!
It seems to me that you're asking if change that is thought to be positive is at the same time possible negative to someone with an opposing point of view. For example, the passing of laws prohibiting private citizens from owning firearms is generally thought to be negative change to people who consider this to be a good way to provide protections and security to themselves and their families. Criminals and pacifists generally consider these types of laws to be a good thing with the former group thinking they are less likely to be harmed if they invade someones home and the latter believing that fewer, or no firearms, necessarily equals peace.
With all that in mind, to ask what group benefits from change and which do not is also a relatively straightforward answer if you can identify two groups on either end of a change spectrum. For example, the gas crunch over the summer cost the consumer a great deal of money and worry, bad change... But, scooter, electric car, hybrid car, and bicycle sales all spiked higher than normal while everyone was wigging out over the cost of fuel; good change for those industries.
Who benefits, who loses, who knows? Certainly, when change comes that puts one group at a disadvantage by which another group is poised to take advantage of, there is probably someone on both the receiving and giving ends that qualifies as winner and loser. But on those larger types of change that affect everyone negatively, like a large scale disaster, it is harder to see how one group over another may have the upper hand. For example, I doubt that anyone considered themselves lucky that Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980 other than those who escaped with their lives.
Round 2 - Well since you are trying to make a case for your HSC your should consider that the answer to this question depends on objectivity. Moreover, to say yes or no is subject to the perspective of the person/group experiencing the change. You should step back and do a self check. Do you want a good grade? Then argue both sides and then, and only then, you should pick one to show you've given the question due consideration before arbitrarily choosing. Remember, assessments of your thinking skills tend to reward the nerdly virtues! Argue it both ways and show em' you have depth and aren't willing to arrive at an easy conclusion before giving it its due course.
This is why I love these types of questions. I look for them and give as objective answers as possible. Then someone, who disagrees or feels my answer is too harsh, rates me with a thumbs down. It's the ultimate goof. It's the greatest pleasure... to exercise my privilege to tell someone something they do not want to hear!
- Kansas ZLv 63 years ago
The answer is quite obviously no. Change can lead to progress, it can also lead to regression. Nazi Germany is a classic example of change being a very bad thing. The people that benefit from change and those that suffer will depend on what exactly has changed. It's also common for certain changes not to have any effect at all, especially when it involves changes in policy.