Is Change Always Good? Examining Whether Progress Actually Makes Things Better

From as long ago as I can remember (and that is a long time for this old man), we have been told “change is good.” To be certain, many times that is exactly correct as measured against a reasonable standard. However, my view is that these are most definitely not one in the same. Better, by definition, means something has been improved. It would be remarkable, not to mention absurd, to argue every single time something has changed, it has been made better.

It ought to be possible to have a conversation where something has changed without those arguing against that change always being described in negative terms. Surely, there must be instances where changing something did not improve it. I can think of a few pretty easily.

Analytics in sports, especially baseball, comes to mind. I defy someone to watch a game today, compare it to one played in the 80’s or 90’s, and tell me the quality of play has gotten better. So, this is not round words or “remember the good old days,” there are specifics to this observation. By being so focused on matters such as spin rates for pitchers and launch angles for hitters, there is scant attention to running the bases correctly, hitting the cutoff man, or playing sound defense. Recently, the Chicago White Sox lost a game because a middle infielder (supposedly where your best defenders play) had a pop fly hit him on the head. The idea of a starting pitcher going nine innings is a foreign concept. Bob Gibson had more complete games in 1968 than all of MLB last year.

Moving to more substantive issues, how about reducing crime? African American scholar Thomas Sowell commented, “If massive programs are the only hope to reduce violence in the ghetto, why was there so much less violence long before anyone ever thought of these programs?”

How about the institution of marriage? Nobody should be made to feel inferior as a result of not being part of a traditional nuclear family. However, it is impossible to seriously examine data and conclude treating the institution casually has improved things. As has often been noted, the best social program in the world is a two-parent home.

Closing the gap between those at the lower end of the economic spectrum and those at the top certainly has not taken place by changing from holding people personally responsible to transferring the job to the government. One does not have to be a fan of Ayn Rand to conclude we might be better served if the change made was to truly respect the dignity of all humans and entrusting them to the maximum degree possible to live their lives independent of an alphabet soup of government programs.

Then, we have our modern education system. An emphasis on “reading, writing, and arithmetic” has been replaced with what is in place today. I am unsure what to even call it other than a miserable failure. A high school graduate today has a fraction of the working vocabulary of someone graduating a generation ago. There is no legitimate measuring stick that can be used to argue things have gotten better. That is a fact.

Instead of evaluating something on the basis of whether or not it is “more modern and in tune with the thinking of today,” how about if we start determining the merits of making a change on the basis of whether or not it actually made something better?

Remember this: Change is change, and better is better. They are far from being one and the same. What do you think?