I think there's a really strong disconnect here that is really common around HN - basically, do you really want to change the world? It seems like people have a tendency to answer "yes" to this question because the alternative makes you look dispassionate.
This line of thinking makes the assumption that ambition is a necessary prerequisite for efficacy. I'm not exactly in a position to qualify this statement, but I would guess that the people who make the greatest positive changes in the world weren't necessarily setting out to have a huge impact, they were just doing what they knew to be right.
Because everyone loves statistically unproven case studies, I offer Penny Arcade. PA launched a webcomic in 98. Five years later, they launched Child's Play - a charity that has raised ~$9M to fund research and facilities for children's hospitals.
When asked about it, Mike mentioned that, when they started Child's Play, neither of them were parents so they didn't know how effective their efforts would be, they just knew it was the right thing to do.
> I would guess that the people who make the greatest positive changes in the world weren't necessarily setting out to have a huge impact, they were just doing what they knew to be right.
This is exactly the same conclusion I have come to. I don't want to change the world. I even gave a Toastmasters speech on this topic - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkct9OcTKRI
Putting your focus on changing the world puts way too much pressure on me. Instead I just want to do the things I enjoy and hopefully they'll be of use to someone else.
Besides, who I am to tell what is good for the world? Does dictactor-like thinking really help people? In all cases I can think of, people in dictator roles who have had the ability to mould a place to their wishes and have had the power to "change the world" have just made things worse off.
Perhaps you could say that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs knew Microsoft and Apple would be world-changing companies, but there are probably countless entrepreneurs that think the same thing before their company fizzles and dies.
If you develop something and it goes on to be a huge success that provides use to hundreds of millions of people around the world then great. If it only impacts a few people then that is great too.
I don't think ambition to change the world plays any part in actually changing the world. It might just only lead to superiority complex.
I agree. Which type of story resonates more with would-be entrepreneurs? The "I want to help others via my business" story, or the "I hate my crappy job, and want to seek what I perceive to be happiness via my own business" story?
I'm not saying that you can't have a mixture of both, or transition from one motive to the other, but most people's first thoughts are about themselves, others tend to come afterward. We are afraid to admit this in public, but I think we can all agree it exists.
So what's wrong with seeking personal happiness first? Does that preclude you from being more altruistic later in life? If you can put others' needs first, more power to you, but that doesn't make those who cannot worse people.
Very good points. To which I'd add, happiness is a social contagion. Happy people make people around them happier. They are nicer, more generous... they give more to charity. Etc. etc. etc.
But woe be unto the selfish, lazy person who seeks personal happiness. Somebody out there is ready to school him/her on what he/she really ought to be doing!
This line of thinking makes the assumption that ambition is a necessary prerequisite for efficacy. I'm not exactly in a position to qualify this statement, but I would guess that the people who make the greatest positive changes in the world weren't necessarily setting out to have a huge impact, they were just doing what they knew to be right.
Because everyone loves statistically unproven case studies, I offer Penny Arcade. PA launched a webcomic in 98. Five years later, they launched Child's Play - a charity that has raised ~$9M to fund research and facilities for children's hospitals.
When asked about it, Mike mentioned that, when they started Child's Play, neither of them were parents so they didn't know how effective their efforts would be, they just knew it was the right thing to do.