Is there a need for change? The answer to that question is subjective, in the sense that the people who will implement the change will almost each time answer no, and the remaining set will always answer yes. So, who is right? Nobody knows for sure, for there should have been a third neutral entity who could have arbitrated the decision, but since there is none, we can try to rationalize both decisions.
The problem lies with our perception of change. We have confused change with evolution, to the extent that we use the terms interchangeably, which is definitely not the case. Evolution can be considered to be a special kind of change that is imperative and the kind we would want to bring about in ourselves out of our own volition in order to survive. I would call all other types of changes as 'stagnant' changes, in the sense that they are non-evolutionary and only a different way of achieving a particular goal. Though, evolution is imperative, stagnant change is always each time either motivated by envy of an another monetarily or emotionally stronger system, or forced on upon by another dominant system, and thus is unnecessary and not in the best interest of the object the change is imposed on.
The human race is divided into several diverse communities, divided by geographical and cultural boundaries. Each of these communities is constantly evolving, in stages. Each community achieves a certain state of evolution through a path it chooses, and then moves on to the next state. Two different communities can achieve the same state of evolution through totally different means. These communities on the surface would seem to be totally different to each other such that one might seem to be more progressed than the other, but under the skin both the communities would be at the same state of evolution. Now, if a community changes its evolutionary state, it underwent evolutionary change, but for an already evolved community if the change came out of envy of the way some other community evolved, or if a community oppressed it to achieve the evolutionary state the way it did, the change would be stagnant change, because the community would achieve change, but it would be at the same evolutionary state.
We come across stagnant changes in our lives almost everyday, some that we even endorse. Take the case of democracy, so does it really matter if the economy of a country is capitalist or communist or hybrid, or if it has multiparty system or if it has a presidential rule, as long as the country is democratic. So, if a democratic country changes its economy from communist to capitalist, will it have achieved evolution? Take software, does it matter if the software is open sourced or closed sourced as long as it makes our life simpler, does it matter if it was written using a procedural or object oriented language? Is object oriented programming an evolutionary change compared to procedural programming?
Why does the human race keep on inventing the wheel again and again? Where is the next level of governance, when will we get our absolute freedom, when is software's next big thing coming?We need to come up with answers, and step into the next state of evolution rather that looping around in the same. Is there a need for change? Yes, there definitely is, but it is about changing our perception of change. Next time we come across a change, we need to ask ourselves if the change is an evolutionary or a stagnant change, and the answer to the question of change will be much easier to answer.