Too often these days, in our haste to embrace what is new, whether it be a new building, a new piece of technology, or a new approach to doing things, we fail to recall what of the old should be retained--an old building refurbished, an old idea revisited, a long standing set of values maintained.
When decisions are made about change, in my humble judgment, we should slow down and ask: What of the old is worth keeping, what of the new should be rejected?
The Old Timer says: "The land not only nourishes our bodies, but feeds our souls."
Any and all comments welcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I would have to agree--I generally will challenge the old, but try not to waste time doing so unnecessarily.
"If it aint broke, don't fix it" is a good motto, but you need to make sure you don't miss out on what the 'new' has to offer.
We do tend to jump to the new and shiny, and not count the cost of doing so. We generally assume new is better. That view often causes quite a bit of 'cost' in time, money and emotional drain.
I have become rather prone lately to look at many aspects of life from the 'benefit/cost' perspective. Not much romance in that, but limiting pain is working out for me so far!
Post a Comment