3 ms·

> I think the mindset of changing of something from within is actually a good one. “Moving on” is probably easier and pragmatic but as a society it’s better to

> I think the mindset of changing of something from within is actually a good one. “Moving on” is probably easier and pragmatic but as a society it’s better to change things instead of just tossing them aside and going to the next thing. I hope the same people will also be active in politics and try to change things. I agree. "Moving on" is a market/capitalist attitude, while "trying to change the company from within" is a democratic/civic attitude. The US has has way too much of the former and way too little of the latter than what I'd consider healthy for a democratic nation. Civic participation is often a thankless slog where it seems like your efforts are having no effect, but it's extremely necessary. Also I think "moving on" often isn't so much "tossing aside" but simply ignoring/avoiding the problem.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
I agree. You see the same mindset in politics where people fanatically stick to one party or the other but barely can formulate an own opinion on issues.
vzcx 7y ago
On the other hand, the United States was created by people who preferred the former. The tree root, branch, leaf, metaphor is nice. It could just be that institutions, whether economic or civic, go through a lifecycle, and that notions of 'progress' are just a cell's perception of advancements towards the next step of the cycle. Being a solid root or branch is no bad thing. But neither is being a seed. Not all seeds will sprout. Not all have too. Nature forces an economy of energy. Problems are 'solved' by mutants as they become adaptive in a certain ecology. This also implies a crowding out of the less adaptive. Go, and be a happy root. But do not despair over the happy leaves on the wind, nor the happy seedlings.