For some time now, I have been writing a lot (and thinking even more) about the divide that exists among people in the world. On the one hand are people who, whether wilfully or through ignorance, seem unaware or unconcerned about the problems that undeniably exist in the world. On the other hand are the people who refuse to live in an imaginary world, and have dedicated themselves to resolving things, setting them right. It seems that people in the latter category have been outnumbered for quite some time. But if you actually find some such people and study them for a while, you may begin to understand why. The simple fact is that most people can't handle the truth. That is, by and large, why they strain to avoid it; They cannot bear its burden. Many people who have finally accepted the real state of the world have found it so hopeless that they have simply self-destructed. Most people who become activists give up after a while; They try to enact some change, find little or no success, and simply give up, either through discouragement or simply from a conviction that the world cannot be changed. These people then spend the rest of their lives as drifters, unable to find much meaning in life, and simply going from one activity to the next, often wondering why they do anything, but carrying on even though they are unable to find any answers. Many people, indeed, are ultimately driven to suicide by it. I am thinking of the particular case of Abbie Hoffman, a well-known activist in his time. Unwilling to accept the status quo, Hoffman went on to become a well-known author, speaker, and all-around public figure who fought for the rights of the oppressed underclass in America. While most of his techniques focused on simple (and rather counterproductive) troublemaking rather than lasting solutions, he was still a dedicated, eloquent, and charismatic man who stands as an important figure in history. And yet this man, with all the words that he had spoken and written about how to change things, ended up finding no real solutions for himself. Ultimately, he committed suicide. What conclusions could be drawn from such a case? Are we to assume that there really are no solutions, and suicide is the best course of action for everyone? Many people have already drawn such a conclusion. (Apparently, Mr. Hoffman must have.) This seems to be why truly earnest people are a rare breed: The odds are against them, and eventually they either have their spirit broken, or they are driven to kill themselves, or both. With this in mind, then, it becomes apparent that the way to reach people must not be to simply beat them over the head with the truth; As I say, many people simply cannot handle it, and if you ever actually convince them to accept it, it may well destroy them. The only way out I can see is to actually focus on the solutions, not the problems. After all, you can complain about something all you want, but simple complaining will not fix the problem. You can educate someone about the problems in the world, but simply knowing about them will not solve them. If you are an activist who seeks to win people to your cause, the most effective tactic cannot be to simply talk about the problem; Rather, the only way that will work is to find a solution and propose it as a course of action. People have a hard time living without something to do. People like to do things, and feeling helpless and ineffective is a feeling that could drive anyone to kill themselves. The people who wish to change the world by reaching the public must have courses of action planned. "Revolution for the hell of it" (the title of a chapter from one of Abbie Hoffman's well-known books) will not produce any lasting, positive change, and the lack of effect from such a campaign will discourage people from further action. So the next time you feel angry, sad, or otherwise dissatisfied with something that someone is doing, have an answer ready for the inevitable question (which may not be spoken, but will be silently thought): "What else am I supposed to do?"