What's wrong with wanting to save the world?

I don't say there's anything wrong with wanting to save the world. Some of my best friends have that desire. On the face of it, their wish would seem to be rather a good idea. But it might not be the right idea for you.

• An activity that sidetracks you from something you would rather do (and are better at doing) and tickles your sweet spot more deliciously may be more preferable, I would point out
• For your happiness to be allowed to depend upon the successful outcome of an event that may never occur . . . well, that might not be the wisest course to follow

What would you actually be doing, or saying about your belief system if you adopted that goal?

You'd be saying, in effect, that such a goal is important to you. Why makes it so? Is it because you are thinking of the future? I suppose that you believe the future to be more important than the present. Why? Because there's more of it? Is there? How do you measure time?

Say you spent thirty years of your life struggling to make the ten years that would by then remain (of your life) more enjoyable--or secure. That is, say your thirty years' worth of efforts results in delaying the end of the world by a decade. Is that a good trade off? Maybe those thirty years spent more 'profitably' (excuse the term) are worth more overall than forty years of toil and trouble. Quality instead of quantity.

Another angle you might consider is that of sacrifice. You, a person, are singular--there's only one of you. The people that come after--your descendants, your countrymen, heck, whoever--are legion. Isn't it worth one person putting him or herself out a little for them? Doesn't it make sense to do a Mother Theresa?

Again, I'm asking you 'Why?' Forget the arithmetic, because it has absolutely nothing to do with numbers. Let's say that I could satisfy you that two people, or ten, or a thousand are no more important than one, then it would make no sense to sacrifice yourself for others. For are you not at least as valuable as anyone else?

And so, all you are doing is shift the potential importance of your place in existence to them. Don't you see? I give up the opportunity of having a fulfilling life so that some other person (or people) can. But if they subscribe to the same philosophy, and so do those that come after, exactly who will benefit from that chain of abdication?

I suggest that you take the bull by the horns. You could be the one, you know. Know what I mean?

Here, you take the ball and shoot. No, I'll pass it to you to shoot. No, you be the one to kick for goal . . .

Forget about others. You say (you might) that you are doing it for your future self. I would come back to what I wrote earlier: is the future any longer or more important than the present?

Yes but . . . the world is so huge! It's our universe! Well, it's true that that is how it seems. But what if time did not exist? What if space did not exist? Then the concepts of 'otherness' and 'separation' would have no meaning. Is it possible to construct a worldview without those universally accepted yardsticks, yet make any sort of sense out of being and existence?

Stick with me.

That's what I am going to try.