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?

+3
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Oct 7 2013: Talha! Revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a planned and deliberate action taken to change the order of existing things or rules. Revolution happens against something. It is Rebellion. But, on the contrary, Evolution is the natural development of something and is a slow but steady process. It is mild by nature. Computer technology has gone through several evolutions.

    Both have their own merits and demerits. If your house is on fire, you wont even think about evolution Talha, or will you ? When An instant 'Turn Around' is required to stop the fire or to run away.

    When there is a thorn in the foot, second thorn is needed to get rid of the first thorn ! - This is Revolution (Instant)
    Once thorn is not there, now Dressing can be think of to get rid of the pain ! - This is Evolution (Slow)

    So, its obvious, as in case of Egypt, revolution was needed to stop the president to get ultimate powers... :)
    • Oct 8 2013: Ah, I see, so you're not going to tell all the professional biologists in the world that punctuated equilibrium must be false and they must abandon it, since punctuated equilibrium doesn't fit your definition of "evolution".
      • thumb
        Oct 9 2013: Hi Bryan :) you have came with very good objectionable example.

        The question asked by Talha was in the prospectus of Human experiences and i think my answer fits well within this. But your example belongs to something that is beyond human experiences. Let me explain this too...

        Yes, Punctuated Equilibrium do not believe in gradual progress and believe in sudden split of species, which is the opposite theory of gradual progression of species (Darwin's evolution theory). Bryan, this kind of conflicts occurs when we mistakenly compares one thing with two different aspects-

        1- One aspect, as the thing is known to us (Within our Human experience).
        2- Second aspect, as they really are by nature in subtle form (Out of Human experience).

        Nature does not behave as it seems to us. Its behavior is totally opposite at subtle level. These Revolution and Evolution concepts are man made definitions and has nothing to do with 'how nature works'.

        You know at Quantum level, a photon do not only behave like a particle but also like a wave. Mystery is still unsolved . Human Experiences is full of dualism in every aspects. We behave, live our life and think in duality. We make theories and concepts with our perception and past experiences. But this is not the way to solve the mystery of Nature. Nature is not bound to follow our theories, this or that.

        Thus, since Evolution and Revolution is the matter of Human Experience. My answer is right in that aspect. :)
        • Oct 9 2013: First, punctuated equilibrium does not believe anything at all, because punctuated equilibrium is a concept, not a person. Second, Darwin's theory is not the end-all and be-all of evolutionary theory. It is no more and no less "in" or "out" of "human experience" than is punctuated equilibrium. Insisting that evolution must be gradual and excluding punctuated equilibrium is nothing but arbitrary and based on entirely irrational criteria. If it is evolution, then it uses all mechanisms of evolution. If it is gradualism, then SAY "GRADUALISM" and stop mis-using the term "evolution".

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.