TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

What's more beneficial: Revolution or Evolution?

All of us had seen the so called Egyptian revolution on our TV channels, whom Karl Marx would, without wasting a fraction of second, recall as ideological state apparatuses trying to perpetuate the ruling class's point of view. But how many of us actually had thought over the need for revolution? Revolution, Revolution and Revolution is always talked about but the reason, the real one, is never debated. The Egyptian revolution geared by social media hypes ended up not different than a social media debate which pretty much clarifies the wrongly perpetuated need for a revolution. Turn the page, and think over evolution. Isn't evolution what we need? Is this the age of revolution or evolution? It's not 1789, it's modernly-trimmed society of 2013. do they need revolution? will they accept revolution? With media at hands, as Marx calls it, won't the ruling class turn the revolution toward its hidden goals?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Sep 25 2013: In fact there is a difference between evolution and revolution. Revolution is a change that is both dramatic and fast, if the change is not dramatic or if takes time then it is not a revolution, in order to make a revolution you need lots of resources available at a single moment, those resources might be economic, human or both, so you cannot make a revolution with a few bucks just as you cannot do it either with a bunch or angry guys, thus if you want a revolution you need a lot of money and/or a lot of people otherwise you are doomed to fail. On the other hand evolution is change that is both small and slow, this means you can fuel an evolution process with small amount of resources.

    A revolution is a blast of energy while evolution is a small but steady flow of energy. In the end the amount of required energy to achieve the desired goal is the same in both processes, however the revolutionary process requires all the energy available simultaneously and immediately, while the evolutionary process only needs a small but continuous supply of energy.

    So to respond to you question, what is more beneficial, it depends on the resources you have.
    • Sep 25 2013: Evolution does not have to be gradual. Gradualism is only one type of evolution. There is also punctuated equilibrium, in which changes tend to be highly concentrated in time, separated by much longer periods with little to no change. The idea that evolution must be gradual has long been abandoned by evolutionary scientists. In general, it is now believed that gradualism and punctuated equilibrium can both be involved in evolution. Sometimes it's slow, sometimes it's fast.
      • Sep 26 2013: What I am presenting here are the two extremes, the black and the white, however I am sure there is an infinite number of shades and possibility in between, in the mid point there should be something that may not be classified neither as evolution nor as a revolution because it will be both.
        • Sep 27 2013: Except that evolution is revolution and revolution is evolution. The only difference is where you arbitrarily draw the line. Thus, no need for two terms. Just add "fast" or "slow" to one.
    • thumb
      Sep 26 2013: I can't get the accounting part of your evolution and revolution stuff. Read about French Revolution, people didn't had tons of dollar in their bags to bring a revolution.
      • Sep 26 2013: You won't understand a thing if you don't read carefully. Please read carefully before replying, I did say "those resources might be economic, HUMAN or both" but you apparently did not read that part. If you do read something about the french revolution, you will realize that they didn't have tons of money but they did have tons and tons of human resources, actually the whole french people. I never said the only thing needed for a revolution was money as you wrongly imply.
      • Sep 27 2013: The French Revolution was actually led by fairly wealthy people. It was not any sort of spontaneous uprising of the poor. Instead, it was a battle between a middle class that had wealth but little to no political authority vs. a monarchy and noble allies that had political authority but dwindling wealth. To complicate matters, there were members of the nobility who thought it sensible that the "men of means" should be admitted into equal status in government with the old nobility, and they sided with the revolution. The old fairy tale about an "uprising of the poor" came after the French Revolution had already finished.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.