I think the source of whatever disagreements are being had in this thread stem from a tendency for people to misperceive the nature of the world they actually have to deal with day to day, and their ability to make any real quantum change in it's nature. This is driven by the seemingly inescapable sense that "men ought to be better than this" but simply aren't, coupled with their own inability do do much about even themselves, never mind everyone else.
One of the reactions to this phenomenon that I see people exhibit frequently, is to imagine a better world, and then try to live their lives as though the world was more like the better one they imagine. My personal opinion is that this is a fools game. Usually what actually transpires, is that being unable to produce any real substantive change themselves, they often latch onto certain causes, and then pursue them to extremes which would shame all but the best of saints. In doing so, they cannot help to implicate and alienate a great many people for "not doing enough" toward their particular cause. The net result is a kind of moral finger pointing usually reserved for religious folk who say but don't do. Now apparently many people feel that Steve Jobs ought to be behaving much more in accordance with the benevolence and altruism that their perception of "the world that ought to be" requires, and are disappointed that he doesn't. I call to witness all the claims of his lack of consideration for "what developers want" claiming that instead he is simply focused on the bottom line. I suppose in the world that ought to be, heads of corporations would be free to pursue such lofty goals at will, while the masses admired him for all he aspired to do. But we live in the real world, not "the world that ought to be", and in that real world, people pay Steve Jobs a lot of money. Those people expect him to do one particular job. That job is to make Apple as profitable, in the near term and in the long term, as he can possible make it. Most of the time he can accomplish this by accommodating as many end users and developers as possible, but this is not always the case. Sometimes in the world that is, you have to take from Peter to pay Paul. Peter's friends will undoubtedly feel angst at this, but then Paul's friends would feel no less angst should the transaction not have occurred. So my point here is that trying to live your live in "the world that ought to be" is fine up until the point that you begin to require of others to do the same. If imaging such a world motivates you to be a better person in the real one, excellent. We need more of you. Just know that my version of "the world that ought to be" is likely to be on may points contrary to yours. We aren't going to get along very well requiring each other to conform to each other's dreams and visions. Instead, we ought to resign ourselves to figuring out how the real world works, and then do our best to live in that world while not compromising our own personal principles, or encroaching on anyone else's rights or freedoms. I often tell starry eyed young people with hearts full of hope recently deferred, "There is 'The World That Is' and there is 'The World That Ought To Be.' You can only live in 'The World That Is.'" Bob _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
