> > You make an assumption that there is a well known, and widely > accepted, objective definition of "progress". Tell me, what is the > progress being achieved in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of > Congo? Northern Uganda with the LRA? Colombia with FARC? Are these > conflicts maximizing individual or societal potentials?
I think you've misunderstood Gautam's question. He does not claim that all conflict leads to progress (whatever it may be), nor does he claim that said conflict is violent/insurgent/anti-government. Conflict can simply be a disconnect or misalignment of ideas, processes or technology. As Danese mentions, this form of conflict is quite common in business, especially in India, when it comes to computers; we are reluctant to let go of our multitudinous workforce, even if it leads to a more efficient organisation. Similarly, my mother refuses to believe that people will buy her furniture on eBay (she'd give it away for free before she sells it online, I think). Yes, it is very difficult to imagine a scenario where everybody will be comfortable with change. As much as they would be amenable to it, they will face some discomfort during the transition. Ideally, such a conflict would be made painless if they were made to understand the inadequacies of their current behaviours before any change is inflicted upon them. It is possible that they will eventually grow to appreciate the benefits of the change, but they won't go without a fight. Newton's Laws of Motion are applicable here as well. -- Sumant Srivathsan sumants.blogspot.com
