Lability as a Social Disease

This is madness.

They change everything, any time.

They persuade people to abandon the old ways of life and run for spurious novelty.

Do we really need that?

"New" does not mean "better". Why should we loose so many good things just because somebody else wants us to change? I used to buy a certain kind of bread, or milk, for a few years - and I was quite content with them. Now, the companies decide that they must be more aggressive on the market, and they start to update their products every year, so that I can no longer know what to buy and how what I buy will affect my health. Quite often, all the change is in the name, the material or color of the can - which is presumably more technological, and hence more expensive. But it is also very confusing, because I cannot always recognize the same product under a new guise. And I have to spend a lot of time trying to find goods that I like in the mountings of garbage I don't need.

Sometimes, the change may be really fatal. For instance, if I can no longer find that unique sort of medicine that helped my organism to keep up despite all the chronic dysfunction, I am doomed to illness and death. The effect of drugs (especially neuroleptics) is very individual, and it may take years for a very good doctor to find a proper combination. If some business idiot introduces a smallest change, the delicate balance will break. Or simply a drugstore suddenly decides to modernize its catalog and sell only the newest drugs…

In many cases, the new versions of the same things are worse and less usable. Shoes, clothes, chemical detergents, tea and coffee, bakery, cheese, perfumes or panty liners are most likely to be spoiled by any change at all. Remakes of classical movies are almost always terrible. Repeating old jokes is no fun at all.

In many other cases, new things are indeed better, within the same range of functions. For instance, a new computer is likely to outperform an old PC almost in any respect, provided there are analogs of the old software that can process the same file types. However, a new car is not necessarily better, if the old one already provides the necessary means of transportation; similarly, an old TV set is quite enough, if you don't need any uncanny functionality out of it. A new version of computer software may be a disaster, if you don't want to double the size of available memory and hard disk space.

Appearance of new products can only be justified if they do something that no previous product could do, provided all the old functions are preserved. The development of Intel processors is an example of good programmatic compatibility: almost any code written for an 8086 or higher can be performed by any older model, and newer software can use more advanced features for better performance. A rewritable CD is a step forward compared to simple CD-R, provided you still allow people to buy cheap single recordables.

Some new products cannot be compared to any older things at all. For instance, a DVD player has nothing in common with an ordinary VCR, and a synthesizer cannot replace neither acoustic guitar nor piano. Unfortunately, market competition results in artificial suppression of older products to impose the newer ones: for instance, I do not want to buy a DVD player (especially noting that DVDs have already been outdated by the blue ray technology), but I just cannot find a (much cheaper) VHS record of a movie I like in the shops. I do not need the questionable higher quality of digital video, and I am quite satisfied with "noisy" tapes. Then why should I be compelled to change my preferences?

In science, new discoveries do not annul the previously established laws within the limits of their applicability. Understanding relativistic or quantum dynamics does not mean that the motion of the macroscopic bodies around us does not obey the laws of classical mechanics any more. Some theories may become obsolete, but they are no less applicable, and they still can be practically used if a modern theory is more cumbrous (albeit more adequate).

There is no replacement of one art with another, and new modes of expression only extend the realm of art, giving birth to self-contained masterpieces rather than re-interpretations of an old theme. As with science, there are obsolete works that do not appeal to the modern audience; however, this does not diminish their artistic value in their own cultural context.

Similarly, a digital camera is no replacement for traditional "wet" photography, and new watches cannot supercede an old chronometer. They accumulate in the culture, complementing each other. Blanc Moelleux by Paul Chenet is entirely different from the same wine by Henri Maison, and Nescafé Classic produced in France has nothing in common with the Brazilian or Indian make. There can be no replacement of one with another.

This is shame for modern society that it has become so deeply infected with the anticulture of change for the sake of change. Obviously, all that rush for change serves to disguise the necessity of one truly expectable change, the replacement of the ancient social and economic organization with a new way of life much more deserving the name of human society proper.