4 ms·
The author of this article seems to be confusing "changing the world" with helping people. UNICEF and similar organizations are great at helping people, but the
by rjsen 14y ago
The author of this article seems to be confusing "changing the world" with helping people. UNICEF and similar organizations are great at helping people, but they really aren't meant to change the world. They just make the existing one a little less terrible for those who are worst off. I can't imagine a compelling argument saying that digging wells or tree planting has changed the world more that Facebook or Google over the last 15 years. Whether those changes have been for the best is open to discussion, but the fact that many startups have in fact changed the world in significant ways is hard to dispute.
- dlf 14y agoNo, I think I quite understand their world changing impact, but those are two examples of the very few companies that have reached the sort of scale where they actually change the world. They represent the vast minority of successful startups, which are a vast minority of all startups. In any case, what is changing the world if not helping people? Or, as I phrased it in the post, improving the circumstance of mankind? There are plenty of ways to do it, and it need not be charity (marine biology or journalism, the other examples from the post, are not charity) and it need not be altogether altruistic in purpose, but to change the world in a desirable way necessarily means helping people. For example, Google helps me find information. Facebook helps me stay connected with friends and family.