Is it much simpler not to evolve? Of cause it is. But then, what is the point of life.
Change changes itself: final rule of how living organism may evolve. It is not just about change but governing the system to ensure changes will take place. From time to time, there will be one odd out with a revolutionary idea. And then the world move forward.
There is no cause without reason. And no reason with a cause. We simply need to evolve because the change in the context. The system has to be in relatively coherent with the context. That is rational for evolution. Context always change because population always increase. And that could possibly became the most fundamental necessity for evolution.
Change can be made rapidly or gradually, depend on the drastic change of the context. In natural system, context tends to change slowly so the evolution may take up to hundred or thousand years. But in the artificiality, context may change rapidly. Sociological and technological contextual, for example, can drop into a rapid change within days. Thus, from time to time, we may need to speed up our evolution a bit faster. We call it a revolution.
There will be casualty in the revolution, of cause, and we saw that throughout our history. Dinosaurs, once rule the earth, had to give their way to the mammal, simply because it has been proven to fit better in the new environmental context. In governing, centralise became dissemination solely because of increasing population. Internet is born only when the technological context allow it to. And it simply changed the world as we once knew it. Examples of such revolution can run down to counted to hundred of examples.
Revolution must be driven only by the context, and not a personal trust. A demand by one could and never be driven in to change. Change has to be done from bottom up and not top down. Revolution without consensus in the system will cause rejection and to prevent chaotic. If that is the case, then, the system has to be brought back to equilibrium only by force. And there will be more causalities.
But not everyone will buy into the idea of change in the first place simply because, we are not similarly exposed to the context. Those who see the pattern will come up first with the revolutionary idea and the rest would just have to follow, only if they can persuade them to. That is why revolution definitely need a strong leader. Those that they will believe in. Those they can trust to walk them blindfold in the darkness.
The leader has to be gentle and accommodate the diversity in the system, and never, ever, bring the system to the equilibrium by force, because that is why we need a leader in the first place. Leader was meant to create the equilibrium without force mature. Leader must pursue the persistence disequilibrium to keep the system equilibrium. And that can be comprehended only by embracing diversity.
Revolution can only happened because of the change in context. And the changes can be made in the equilibrium only with the consensus within the system. Those who can have that consensus can only then, become a leader that leads the revolution and brings consistence to the rapid evolution. And only that the system can survive through the rapid change of the context.
And the true leader always reveal of himself.