Drunken Revelations

I was on the phone the other day, speaking to a close friend of mine. We were shooting the

breeze, chit-chatting, the usual; complaints about studies and our upcoming exams were a
dozen a penny.

He told me about a night out on the town, dancing in the downtown discos (what a pretty piece of alliteration!), chugging tequila, whiskey and vodka and driving back to a friend's pad (please
don't be judgemental people). Another bottle of vodka shared between three friends and my mate became (temporarily) a philosopher. Something like this is unusual for my normally cynical buddy, so I was compelled to sit up and pay attention.

He told me that as he lay on the floor, Fuel burning in his body, one thought was running through his mind. "Why do I have to study?"

We all know the answer to that question. I asked him if he really hadn't figured that one out by now. (I didn't actually; wish I had. I always think of snappy comebacks slightly too late). It wouldn't have mattered if I had said it because that wasn't the answer he was looking for.

He said again,"Why do we study? Why do we have to have jobs or work?"

"Well, how else would you live?"

"Why can't we just live on a farm, chill, grow a few vegetables to eat and hang out with friends on nearby farms? Was it so bad when man used to live in a jungle?" This question had occupied his thoughts for quite some time so I thought it was worth answering.

"I find it surprising that you, of all people, would say this. If you did live on a farm, for one, you wouldn't be able to afford all the things you enjoy now."

"Maybe I don't need them. I'm sure I can go without." This from a guy who has lived in the lap of luxury all his life. But he sounded sincere. "Look, I like material things. Sometimes I do feel I don't have enough. But that's only when I see others having more. If the whole world lived simply, there wouldn't be any problems. Why do we need progress? What's the point in having more or doing more? We're all going to die someday. A beggar on the street and a king will both meet the same end one day. So why bother trying to be the king? Why can't everyone be happy with being a beggar?" (I'm paraphrasing obviously, and writing from my tremendously 
unreliable memory).

The more he said, the more it sounded right. How has "progress" really helped
anyone? Medical advances save lives, technology makes our life easier and more
comfortable. But longer lifespans mean a greater burden on our environment
(sounds pretty cold and unsentimental but it's true). Technology has mostly been
pretty bad for Mother Nature. 

Instead, I pondered aloud about why progress happens. I told him, "Nobody
says we need progress. The vast majority of people would have been happy
living the way you just described; that is, if they didn't know any better. Progress
has always been the achievement of individuals who weren't satisified with the
status quo. You asked me why people would rather be the king than the beggar?
It's because people who want progress are the people who want to be remembered
after they're gone. A beggar and a king may meet the same end, but who'll
remember the beggar a hundred years from now. Forget beggars, say you or
I die tomorrow. Fifty years from now, who will remember that we ever existed?"

He said, finally, that he saw why progress happens. But he didn't like it. 
Neither do I.

I don't have a problem with progress of any kind; technological, social or 
otherwise. But some of itseems rather pointless. Take, for instance, weapons. 
In the good old days, real men bashed in the skulls of other real men with
stone clubs. Then copper rolled around; and later, bronze. Swords and spears
were the cutting-edge weapons technology of the day and each new innovation
gave some advantage over the previous weapon. However, whenever the
next big thing in killing rolled around, everyone adopted it pretty soon. The
advantages gained by progress were pretty soon nullified because everyone
used the same technology.

Look where we are now. ICBMs and missile shield technologies. Would it 
really make much of a difference if we still fought each other with sword, 
shield and spear? It would be much cheaper, easier on the environment 
and would mean fewer civilian deaths. Progress, hascompelled everyone 
to spend more and more money on what is a pretty simple job: killing 
people.

Take business. In the old days, everyone used regular inventory management 
systems. Then the Japanese began using Just-in -Time; a breakthrough in 
inventory and flow control. They reaped huge benefits from it and it enabled 
them to put one over their lumbering American competitors.

But once everyone began doing it, the competitive advantage was lost. It became 
the baseline, from which all future progress was to be measured. I would 
wager that if everyone agreed to stop using JIT (or any other management 
tool), itwouldn't make the slightest difference to the companies' relative 
market positions. And it would make life a whole lot easier for people 
actually doing the work.

What was the point of this enormously lengthy post? Nothing. Just trying to 
improve my writing skills. :P