If you're going to change the lives of people, is it better to change the
lives of a great many people, or only a few?
  This is one of the biggest questions which confronts the budding
philanthropist. At first glance, of course, it seems like it's better to
change the lives of many. There are many, many people in the world who are in
need of help. Why wouldn't it be better to help a big mass of people instead
of only a select few?
  The problem arises in the practicality of things. One person can only do so
much, and while it's true that most people in the world vastly underestimate
the potential of an individual to change things, the basic certainty still
exists that there is a limit to what one person can do.
  Consider a financial donation. If you had a million dollars, what could you
do with it? It seems like you could do a lot to help people with that much
money. Yet, how many people could you help with it? If you live in a major
city, the population of your city alone is several times one million. Even in
a city of only one million people, if you gave that wealth to everyone
equally, you could only give one dollar to each person in the city. And one
dollar doesn't do very much to help a person in today's world at all; It
doesn't even buy a single meal. If you gave one dollar to each of a million
people, the money would be almost wasted; It wouldn't do anyone very much
good at all.
  Of course, some people have much more than one million dollars, but even
the world's wealthiest people have limits to their financial worth, and even
they do not have enough money to support every person on Earth. They can do
powerful good deeds with their wealth, and many of them do, but there is
still a limit to how many people they can reach. As such, they are forced to
narrow their focus to certain classes of people, certain organizations, or
certain geographical areas. They cannot simply "save the world".
  Chances are that you have considerably less than one million dollars. As
such, you must also decide who you will support if you wish to change the
world. The maxim "Think globally, act locally" applies here. Its meaning is
simple: Understand that as a person, you have the potential to affect global
events and mindsets, and you should always bear in mind how your life affects
the world at large, but at the same time, understand that you cannot
singlehandedly solve every world problem. If you want to improve the world,
then you, as a normal, everyday person, are probably better off selecting a
few of the world's most needy people to start helping, rather than trying to
take on the world by storm in a sea of change.
  The world's most influential people, the ones who left their most lasting
mark on global society, are usually the ones who changed the world mainly
through expression rather than action. Famous people like Gandhi, Mother
Theresa, and similar folks are best remembered for what they said, rather
than for what they did. That's not to say that they did not do great works
in their lives, but rather, when they died, their words remained with the
world more than their actions. The people who have the greatest global impact
are people who change the way people think, often through art like music,
poetry, or writing. If you really want to be someone who changes the world
for the better on a global scale and are not happy being a healing influence
only in your local community, then you would probably be most effective doing
so through expression, because when you express, you present different ideas
to people, and ideas change the way people think. So work on being an
effective speaker, an effective writer, and an effective conversationalist.
  Meanwhile, act locally. Do what you can right here at home.