The paradox of "Development"
Google dictionary defines "Development" as an event constituting a new stage in a changing situation.
If you consider the above definition, there is a new stage, but is that new stage necessarily better than the previous stage? Nowhere does the definition say that. But traditionally we have looked at and interpreted development to mean something better than the previous state or stage.
While this is generally true, is it always true? And if it is not always true, meaning, you move from a stage or state to another one which may not be better, is it still considered as development? By definition it should be development but by normal view most people would not consider it as development.
Why is this so? Can you think of "developments" that have not gone ahead and made it a better state?
Are there "developments" that we look at in the immediate and it seems that it helps us to achieve a better state but over a period of time, we come to realise that it has in fact caused more problems than benefits?
There are some things that big corporations would not like us to look at. Consider the introductions of antibiotics to help "beef up" beef back in the 1940s. The meat shortage at the turn of the century led to protests and boycotts with the public asking the US government to research into creating an adequate supply chain. This resulted in the introduction of antibiotics helping to create more meat per cattle, thereby leading to an increased supply. Hurrah was in order and everyone celebrated.
Until as recently as 2017, when it got banned, the addition and usage of antibiotics was widespread and common practice. We are only now beginning to realise the ill-effects of this and the long term consequences of the same. The impact and creation of super-bugs is only the first scratch on the surface. We fail to even estimate the overall impact that this "development" has had on the overall health of the human population.
When we consider the above and take a very agnostic view, there are several developments that we seem to be celebrating but have absolutely no clue on what the long term social, health, environment and other impacts are.
We celebrate "Artificial Intelligence", we celebrate "Connected Services", we celebrate "Internet". Do we have the capacity to even attempt to see how this impacts us in the long run? If and when we realise there are negative aspects to this, will there be a possibility to "roll back"?
Since we have no way of knowing, do we stop "developing"? The obvious answer is no, correct?
Are there people who have realised that development is not actually development and have opted for an alternate path? What is that path, if any?
How do we choose the path that we as humankind need to take? I would like to hear your opinion on the same. Please comment and let's keep this debate going. Thank you.
Development is told by Google or dictionary ,& others. One mans meat is another mans poison Well Arjun I will say you define the word development you can see it feel it & endure it & makes a difference in a good way. That is all in a simple way.
I see development as improvement not just change in state and in that case i would expect the new state to be better than the previous. For example 'baby /child development' is a positive thing but after a certain age to your point when the next stage is not as good as the previous we say 'human aging process' :-). Development, to me, is a necessary evil. It has to happen and with it comes both good and bad. I don't think we should stop development or progress but have guardrails and check in place to make sure if trends positively!