Meh. I think we'd all be better off if we did what was good for us and for people in our environment, rather than trying to save the world.
Well, you could be a great doctor or teacher, for example. Great architect or artist? Poet, author? There are many ways to contribute.
But you can't be a great call girl?
Sure. Now can you figure out why that's different than being a doctor or teacher?
Not really. Care to explain?
Nope. If you don't get it, it's probably lost on you, which makes it even more painful to see people so gifted squander their abilities. There are so many problems to solve and so few people who can solve them.
Personally I'm happy enough when I see people just choosing activities that don't cause more problems.
It sounds like you just have a lot of judgement about what is and is not valuable work in the world, and would rather hide behind condescension than be honest about that.
Okay, I get your point. But surely waitressing is better for society than writing poetry?
Depends on how good you are. Something like this will be inspiring people for a long time:
What do you base that on?
Life is a balancing act. People who worry about their legacy are usually not the nicest people to be around because they don't have time for other people, and they usually don't really end up making an impact either.
Mind you, I'm not a cynic, I think ambition is a wonderful thing... in the right quantity.
It has absolutely nothing to do with legacy. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates will largely be forgotten in a couple hundred years. However, humanity benefits from their contributions.
I'm wondering why you think life is a balancing act. I hear people say "balance" all the time like this, but I don't see any real advantage to it. It just seems like a fluff word.
Like, what are you balancing, and where is the evidence that this is superior in ways that generally matter?
There are no guarantees how impactful your work will be but if more of the 7 billion people on this planet could contribute, we'd all be better off.