Lately I've been reading Plato's Republic for another philosophy class and I've wondered, what does it mean to actually contribute to a conversation? If you think about it, all the words, sentences, and ideas that we as people convey every single day between one another are sure to have been used before. Sure, some new ideas might come around once in a while, but every day conversations are steadily recycled. With that said, the same can be said for our endeavors in things such as environmental conservation. Everyone is saying the same things that people said before them. A new idea with new jargon may come up, but the estimated results are the same ones that people with concerns talked about years ago. It's as the old adage goes, "there are no new ideas." So what makes an idea what it is? Should only good ideas count? What constitutes an idea worthy of acknowledgment? In my opinion, the mainstream audience will accept an idea if they are comfortable with it and comfort comes from familiarity. If something resembles something that has been done before, but has been tweaked ever so slightly, then it will be accepted so long as it's not too radical of a tweak. I think this is due to the mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," keeping the methodology of those who are in charge on a straight course, however slow it may be. Unfortunately, they pay little attention to the fact that sudden change is surrounding them and that sudden change is needed in order to remedy the situation.