Change

Change is constant. This is the framework of society. Except that change is constant, Japan would have never gained commercial recognition. Except that change is present, societies like ours will never have had the drive to pursue Japan's achievements. On a personal level, it further reminds one of the Scout motto -- Be prepared. Change teaches alertness and makes us adaptive beings, reigning over all other Darwinist creatures. It thus appears to be the case that change is for the better. Yet, with such compelling examples, it remains that change has brought damage.

Change destroys the concept of continuity. "Destroys" here is used bluntly because there had never existed a constant. Still, the idea being proposed is that friends do not stay as friends forever. There would one day come a loss, an emotional detachment. There would be new friends just as the old ones fade into memories. This is inevitable. Couples will part, whether by death or other external factors

Note: Vows and contracts are legal restrictions that do not change unless fulfilled. Yet, even within these, there are inconsistencies. Thus, in dealing with change, we must come from the perspective of the individual.

Next, change is out of human control. What this implies is that it is much feared by mankind. As such, the only way of overcoming it would be to speed up its process, to take the power of the rate of change out of the person and to transfer it to the state. When people become caught up in this tide of change that society creates, factors of variables are reduced, and uncertainties are then minimised. This then leads to willing enslavery to the system.

Perhaps, the issue of human rights may then be brought in to question this point. My response then is: Is the choice made due to desperation considered proper and right?

Thus, in summary, change then indeed provides benefits for the society as a macro-entity. On the other hand, it harms the individual person, the micro-entity.