Change for the sake of change?

How does "change for the sake of change" affect the long term health of Long Island?

We define "change for the sake of change" as those acts which have as their primary motive the appearance of facilitating a substantive change for the public good. 

The initiators of these acts, whether government officials, members of the media or others, may do so for a variety of reasons. 

Some feel the only way to get any change at all is to get some change, no matter what it is. This is done primarily out of frustration, legitimate or not, as to the pace of the change they feel is important. 

Is the change important for their future or circulation or legitimately important for Long Island's future? Sometimes the legitimate and self-aggrandizement/financial elements suit a common purpose. More often they do not.

The danger in this type of change is that sometimes it causes more damage than the problem it purports to fix. 

The public perceives the minor change which got so much attention and required so much effort as a major change. The natural reaction to a major change is then to call for a "rest period" before any other change may take place.

Ultimately this start and stop routine results in little if any substantive progress and generally causes individuals and organizations to grow further apart.

We must be able to think and act on multiple levels simultaneously.

What we propose in out Long Island Congress and Long Island 3.0 concepts is a "perpetual process" in the best sense of the term. Not a "perpetual process" which doesn't lead to solutions, but the type of "perpetual process" which comes to solutions but makes sure those solutions are constantly "recycled" into the process to ensure their continued viability.

Think, communicate, act. Repeat.

Any knowledge that doesn't lead to new questions quickly dies out: it fails to maintain the temperature required for sustaining life.     Wislawa Szymborska