I had the privilege to attend the World Economic Forum Annual Meet 2024. Every year #wef annual meeting welcomes representatives of more than hundred governments, all major international organizations, more than thousand forum’s partners, civil society leaders, experts, and social entrepreneurs.
For five days, Davos Switzerland nestles new ideas, programs and visions where problems are discussed and the future course planned. World Economic Forum gave me hope as I experienced infectious enthusiasm while navigating through the thought provoking panels and brilliant panelists thus, interacting with the brilliant and genius from all over the world.
Yet, a nagging thought overpowered me time and again. I would often wonder about the tangible impact of these conversations. There were few voices that cut through the mainstream noise, for only those attuned to them. Barring those few, everyone was beating the same drum.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe we all are dreaming the same dream and we all have had an honest intent – to work towards building a new world. The thing is: we don’t have an idea what the new world would be like. How to change the course of human history to prevent the catastrophe we all are headed to?
Best I can sum up: we are paddlers and hustlers. However, we may lie and pretend, the fact remains: We are no change makers. We are good at creating noise, adding new jargons, acting as if so much good is happening while the actual reality isn’t changing as perceived/ highlighted.
Question is: Who is a changemaker? There have been many, but the first person that comes to my mind is: Gandhi
Imagine this: A world at the peak of Industrial Revolution where a race for world domination, to build the deadliest of weapons, with violence at its peak (world wars and holocausts) there was this one man who continuously reverberated the idea of peace through non-violence and Satyagraha (truth force). He was mad enough to envision his motherland would attain freedom from the mightiest imperial power of its time, by peaceful means. He had an insane conviction that 340 million fellow countrymen would follow him to freedom. He was one hell of a CHANGEMAKER!
“If the world is saved, it will be saved by people with changed minds, people with a new vision. It will not be saved by people with old minds and new programs. It will not be saved by people with the old vision but by a new program.”
We do not need new programs, we need a new vision. You might wonder the difference between a program and vision. To me, no one has simplified the concept like Daniel Quinn. It would be better if I share his words as it is, with the world.
| “I’m not sure I know the difference between a vision and a program.” “Recycling is a program,” B said. “Supporting earth-friendly legislation is a program. You don’t need a new vision to engage in either of these programs.” “Are you saying that such programs are a waste of time?” “Not at all, though they do tend to give people a false sense of progress and hope. Programs are initiated in order to counter or defeat vision.” “Give me an example of what you mean by vision.” “Vision in our culture supports isolation, for example. It supports a separate home for every family. It supports locks on the doors. It powerfully supports staying isolated behind your locked doors and viewing the world electronically. Since this is the case, no programs are needed to encourage people to stay home and watch television. On the other hand, if you want to get people to turn off their television sets and leave their homes, that’s when you need a program.” “I see—I think.” “Isolation is supported by vision, so it takes care of itself, but community building isn’t, so it has to be supported by programs. Programs invariably run counter to vision, and so have to be thrust on people-have to be ‘sold’ to people. For example, if you want people to live simply, reduce consumption, reuse, and recycle, you must create programs that encourage such behaviors. But if you want them to consume a lot and waste a lot, you don’t need to create programs of encouragement, because these behaviors are supported by our cultural vision. “Yes, I see.” “Vision is the flowing river. Programs are sticks set in the riverbed to impede the flow. What I’m saying is that the world will not be saved by people with programs. If the world is saved, it will be saved because the people living in it have a new vision.” “In other words, people with a new vision will have new programs.” “No, that’s not what I’m saying. I repeat: Vision doesn’t need programs. Vision is the flowing river. The Industrial Revolution was a flowing river. It needed no programs to get it going or to keep it going.” “But it wasn’t always flowing.” “Exactly. It wasn’t a river in the second century or the eighth or the thirteenth. There was no sign of the river in those centuries. But, one after another, tiny springs bubbled up and began to flow together, decade after decade, century after century. In the fifteenth century, it was a trickle. In the sixteenth, it became a brook. In the seventeenth, it became a stream. In the eighteenth, it became a river. In the nineteenth century, it became a torrent. In the twentieth, it became a world. And through all this time, not a single program was needed to further its progress. It was awakened and sustained and enhanced entirely by vision.” I asked, “Is it so easy to change a cultural vision?” “The relevant measures are not ease and diffculty. The relevant measures are readiness and unreadiness. If the time isn’t right for a new idea, no power on Earth can make it catch on, but if the time is right, it will sweep the world like wildfire. The people of Rome were ready to hear what St. Paul had to say to them. If they hadn’t been, he would have disappeared without a trace and his name would be unknown to us.” “The point I want to make here is that I have no idea what people with changed minds will do. If people in the coming century have a new vision, then they’ll do what is completely unpredictable to us. Indeed, if this were not the case—if their actions were predictable by us—then this would prove that they didn’t have a new vision after all, that their vision and ours were essentially the same.” “You almost make it sound as though people should refrain from action of any kind. Doesn’t any course of action eventually become a program?” “This misses the point. Programs aren’t ‘forbidden.’ What’s important is to understand the difference between vision and programs. Programs are inherently reactionary. This doesn’t make them ‘bad,’ it just makes them reactionary, meaning that they always follow, never lead (because they only react to something else). Programs are like first aid. This doesn’t make them ‘bad,’ it just makes them provisional and temporary. Programs are invariably responses to something bad, which means they must wait for bad things to happen. (Again, this doesn’t make them wicked, it just forever makes them play catch-up.) By contrast, vision doesn’t wait for something bad to happen, it pursues something desirable. Vision doesn’t oppose, it proposes. It doesn’t stave off defeat, it opens the way to success. “In our culture at the present moment, the flow of the river is toward catastrophe, and programs are sticks set in the riverbed to impede its flow. My objective is to change the direction of the flow, away from catastrophe. With the river moving in a new direction, people wouldn’t have to devise programs to impede its flow, and all the programs presently in place would be left standing in the mud, unneeded and useless.” |
The World Economic Forum is the grandest global platform to question, brainstorm and figure out the new world we would love to build. I believe, we all have an honest intent. I believe, with the talent #wef attracts, we can work towards creating the new vision with a new mindset. I am willing to train myself to step back, pause, question, contemplate and work towards creating a new mindset. I want to be part of the new vision. Do you?
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” -Buckminster Fuller
Reference:
Leave a Reply