Nothing's as daunting as a blank page - except maybe the idea of changing a whole society! But as with writing, once you get started and get some momentum going, social change is not only possible but inevitable. When we think about the great positive changes in society - democratic voting, abolishing slavery (well, except for where it still exists in the modern world, but more on that another time), dramatic improvements in healthcare - we realise that while it may seem almost unbearably slow for those at the pointy end of trying to create societal change, our human instinct is to look for ways to make our lives better not only as individuals but as a group.
While much of the world of politics seems hellbent on proving one's own worldview is correct, it's interesting to think about:
What's the best balance between an emphasis on the rights/freedoms/welfare of the individual, and the rights/freedoms/welfare of society as a whole? Instead of looking at this as an "either/or" proposition, isn't it time we looked more at how those things are in fact intertwined?
Does luck play almost no part in a successful and healthy life (because it's all determined by effort) or does effort play almost no part (because it's pre-determined by luck)? Again, is it possible that the answer is not "either/or" but a complex mix of both? And if so, the answers to the challenges this poses for society may not be as black and white as what they're painted by popular politics?
To what extent to our "entrenched positions" on issues such as the "best" way to manage the economy, or how to deal with various problems (from aged care, child care and health care to housing, suicide, transport, crime, terrorism) stop us from really discussing and coming up with new and better solutions?
All views are welcome here, with one important proviso: a new approach must start with respectful and civil discussion (no matter how infuriating you may privately find the other person or their point of view).
Maybe the first thing we need to do is define what a healthy Australian society would look like.
More on that to come in future posts.
Thanks for reading.
While much of the world of politics seems hellbent on proving one's own worldview is correct, it's interesting to think about:
What's the best balance between an emphasis on the rights/freedoms/welfare of the individual, and the rights/freedoms/welfare of society as a whole? Instead of looking at this as an "either/or" proposition, isn't it time we looked more at how those things are in fact intertwined?
Does luck play almost no part in a successful and healthy life (because it's all determined by effort) or does effort play almost no part (because it's pre-determined by luck)? Again, is it possible that the answer is not "either/or" but a complex mix of both? And if so, the answers to the challenges this poses for society may not be as black and white as what they're painted by popular politics?
To what extent to our "entrenched positions" on issues such as the "best" way to manage the economy, or how to deal with various problems (from aged care, child care and health care to housing, suicide, transport, crime, terrorism) stop us from really discussing and coming up with new and better solutions?
All views are welcome here, with one important proviso: a new approach must start with respectful and civil discussion (no matter how infuriating you may privately find the other person or their point of view).
Maybe the first thing we need to do is define what a healthy Australian society would look like.
More on that to come in future posts.
Thanks for reading.