Some examinations of Buddhist principles say that the whole thing rests on a single idea: Everything changes. You could modify that to "Everything ages". I have been interested in different versions and editions of software, books, music, and plays. Now that I think about it, why do cars come out in different models every year?
I would like to know in the case of fashions of dress, versions of software and models of cars, how necessary change is. I am dumb enough and habitual enough that I am not inclined to change what doesn't seem to need changing. If change is everywhere, and if I and my friends are continuously changing through aging and related deterioration, is it commercially necessary to add arbitrary change in addition? It seems to me that leaders sometimes take the stance that modification is part and parcel of a successful path of an organization. Is it? Maybe a change, any change, labeled "new" or "improved" or not, helps people stay awake and aware.
I assumed that software, for instance, needed to be modified to remove "bugs" and flaws and errors from the programs. But if cars have been modified every year for 100 years, they must be nearly perfect by now. I am very confident that air bags, streamlining, better brakes and other features are indeed superior to cars of 1918. I am still curious about how much of the change has been a genuine improvement in the functioning of the vehicle and how much is merely a chance to use words like "new model", and "the latest".
I have seen that in nearly every political contest, all parties claim that they will make changes. They seem to look for issues that are either on people's minds as irksome or worse or for issues that the public can be persuaded are in need of change. I note that in the comic novel by Christopher Buckley "Supreme Courtship" that the incumbent US president runs again using the slogan "More of the same". I realize that I have not heard candidates promise "more of the same" even though that tends to be what we get.
