Change

Since the last world war there has been a continual rise in the role of woman in the workforce as well as in politics.

Its now hard to believe that there was a period when, in economics terms, most countries were limiting their effectiveness by ignoring half of their gene pool.

But because they were all doing it there was no competitive disadvantage.

Which is my way of saying that the best way to get social change adopted, whatever it is, is to link it as closely as possible to national economic or company competitiveness.

Money rules, above even the retardedness of the most conservative moral types. As soon as one country or company gets ahead because it has adopted a new approach, it is almost inevitable that others will follow. Because if they continue not to adopt beneficial new practices then after a period of time they become obsolete and then fall out of existence.

Money rules. And there are only a few pockets of people who avoid this rule and survive – the North Koreans, the Amish and a handful of others. But even these groups, to a large degree, live off the goodwill of others who do believe in money.

At a practical level, if you have a change you want to see in the world that you are passionate about then you are best advised to find the most lucrative financial or economic outcome of the adoption of that change and focus your efforts there. Call it a ‘beachhead’.

Once initial adoption is achieved because of that proven financial or economic benefit then you can broaden the efforts elsewhere.

Bugger the ‘be the change you want to see’ rubbish.