Changing oneself or changing the world ?

"The recursion of innovation along with knowledge and tools provides humanity with purpose and a choice between two possible futures: changing the world or changing ourselves."

• Some people choose to care changing the world, others don't. There is no sense speaking about a collective decision here. Religions usually push people on the way to "change oneself" but is it wise ?
  
• Concretely, I fail to find a concept of what it means to "change oneself", and what might this have to with "not changing the world". I understand what it means to shut up and suffer in an hostile world, either in silence and/or because nobody is listening to the cries. People either suffer or do not suffer, or maybe care to pretend to not suffer when they actually suffer, for fear of being considered unspiritual people who failed to change themselves in case they still complained (see the above remark on the Emperor's New Clothes). The other thing I see is that it does concretely mean something to choose between trying to change the world, or not trying to change the world for fear of being considered unspiritual if one tried.
• Neale Donald Walsch insists that your best way to change the world is by changing yourself into someone who gives up any care to change the world, considering that it does not matter. (I'm not convinced but it looks like a very popular teaching)
  
• The idea of changing the world has multiple meanings, and is too ambiguous. Some people would care to change the world so as to force other people into a better respect to the natural environment, while others would destroy the environment to satisfy their personal comfort while having the feeling that they just caring about their own business in a way that is adapted to the margin of freedom they happen to have in the world.
• The usual argument for "Change yourself instead of trying to change the world" is that some people would naturally make wrong complaints against society, for their troubles which are actually not the world's fault but the consequences of their own errors or incompetence (still, cases of real innocence of society for some problems do not always imply the availability of solutions in the hand of the victim, either by "changing themselves" or not, as there also exists inequalities of fate with no cure, either personal or collective, such as accidents or genetic factors). The problem is to know if it can someday become possible for the rest of the world to stop being so stupid as to be systematically unable or unwilling to correctly distinguish between cases when a collective solution is possible or not, whenever it does not look trivial (i.e. not in cases of murder, illness or natural disasters), and finally become able to indeed recognize it whenever complainers may happen to be right saying that the world goes wrong, so that some kinds of truly collective problems usually assumed to be personal problems can become formulated as collective problems, and a search for a collective solution may be undertaken. Because there can be a real fact of the matter here, that may need a hard study to properly decipher. And if a collective solution would be in fact be possible but we still don't know it just because we wrongly assume otherwise and nobody bothered to seriously think about it, then it would be cynical to dismiss the complain and just call for victims to shut up and suffer in silence, because they "need to change their desires" and have to be either happy doing so or pretending that they must agree to see themselves as ugly nonspiritual villains if they cannot be happy with their fate, for fear of religious shame. I developed this further here.
• In some cases and not the least (see especially the second part of my video), what actually happens is that some troubles suffered by individuals in society, and to which they are forcefully requested to adapt themselves to (and against which no complain can be tolerated for fear of passing for an arrogant individual guilty of intolerance towards society and ridiculous failure to adapt oneself to it), are troubles that precisely consist in an act of violence that society individually operates unto this individual (that any non-crazy person would recognize as personally targeted to the individual independently of anything else, and thus that nobody else needs to be done, but maybe everyone is crazy)... and why is it that society operates this violence against this individual ? Not because the individual was found guilty of anything and deserving to be punished, no. The individual is perfectly recognized as absolutely innocent here. But the violence exerted to him, is very far from natural : a very collectively and systematically organized elaborate one, that society decided to dedicate huge lots of financial resources to similarly distribute to many individuals, just because... these violent actions are those by which society best succeeds to feel proud of its goodness and generosity towards its members, by the way in which these acts of violence by society against individuals are reinterpreted as acts of generosity towards them, when these acts come to be reported in the f***g tables of statistics.

• not only religious people stick to abstract, unpractical, superstitious "values" such as straight families, ideals of sexual "purity" and the ban of pornography which seems to be their main obsession, without noticing that there is nothing moral in their way of blaming the methods of those who are reduced to miserable ways of begging for love because the world did not have the decency to provide them with more fair and honorable alternatives ;
• but even professional futurologists usually found nothing better to get out of their boredom when studying the stakes of the future, apart from the few "admissible" global problems (such as ecology, though it is even taboo for libertarians), than making up abstract speculative ideas of very faraway dangers such as meteorite falls or the coming "singularity". So absurdly faraway futures, much too "abstract and general" and disconnected from any effective reality to make any possibly effective sense trying to think about them, that no matter how obsessively they focus on such perspectives, just like trying to detect life around other stars by building bigger and bigger telescopes, there is no start of a chance for such speculations to have any proper grasp or real effect on such supposed futures, that, independently of these dreams or nightmares, we are effectively approaching step by step.