“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

-- George Bernard Shaw

I used to admire this but have come to realize it is true in certain context only, while the GP one is much more humble

The key word here is change v/s progress.

The classic example of this is commuting via car v/s bicycle. The staggering amount of resources dedicated to solving this problem can be termed as progress with better infrastructure, cars (self-driving even) - contrast it against the change that those who can change to commute via bicycle.

We can only know progress in hindsight and only at things that can be quantified. It is self-serving in that sense, when you exclude the non-measurable.

It's possible to be humble without surrendering completely.

I'm rather aware that change is difficult.

It's far more difficult if you give up before you begin.

And it's helpful to have an understanding of the problem and its space (see my long comment to this thread, and the failure / success chain). Often the obvious / simple solution won't work, though again, if you simply give up you'll never recognise that and seek other options.

If you hit a mountain that you cannot climb or tunnel through, you simply go around it - you don't try to move it or worse start a movement to move it.

It is not about surrendering or giving up. There is difference between when you have to stand up for something, when you find yourself in a situation where you have to go beyond yourself and where you "want" to be a hero. This myth of the hero needs to die. Think about it, a society that doesn't need heroes is a better one.

I am not sure if you realize but there is nothing humble about starting a social movement to "change the world" - which is what the original question was about. Engineered v/s emerged - one is hubris, the other one is just is. I wish one could ask all the successful people who "started" a social movement (as opposed to one that emerged), whether with the hindsight of how it played out over the decades, would they still have done it.

To paraphrase the life comment - change happens while you are busy wanting to create it.

Your allegory of the mountain is precisely what I'm getting at.

Attempting the physically or logically impossible, or the effectively counterproductive. The point is to identify a problem, an achievable preferred state, and to work toward that.

Note that even towering mountains, given time, technique, or resources, can be overpassed, leapt over, or tunneled through. And that there are projects which take generations. The Swiss Alps are now laced with roads (rail, cable, and automobile), overflown by aircraft, and pierced by tunnels.

The best heros aren't of the Charge of the Light Brigade variety. They're the ones who identify a viable method and exploit it --- Odysseus and his Horse, Turing and his cipher-breaking tools, Gandhi and his Salt March.

A social change that doesn't need to be engineered ... doesn't require heros. One that won't happen without a specific concerted effort, or which might tip in any number of directions with some vastly preferable to others, do. I'd argue that part of the genius and heroism comes from recognising such loci, recognising the societal magnitude of the task, and searching for a solution space. As with scientific, engineering, and business innovation, even failures teach lessons, and diversifying investments over multiple strategies --- not in the blind sense of blindly inspiring cannon fodder to charge into fire (the Light Brigade, again), but to seek out more favourable options and avoid obvious low-probability / high-risk attempts --- is all but certainly the way to go.

And again: declaring defeat in advance, or throwing up ones hands and declaring that "all is foreordained" won't get you there.

I do advice research (see again previous) and marshalling and conserving your own energies. But not doing nothing at all.

Even slow moving water and the blowing wind can, in time, cut through or wear down that mountain.

>> And again: declaring defeat in advance, or throwing up ones hands and declaring that "all is foreordained" won't get you there.

I am not sure why what I said comes across as defeatist :).

>> I'd argue that part of the genius and heroism comes from recognising such loci, recognising the societal magnitude of the task, and searching for a solution space

I agree. Thank you for the thoughtful responses and the references.

I read the Salantar quote as ... largely defeatist, despite the twist at the end.

There are people who've left their mark who haven't followed that specific track, and the implied suggestion that it is the only and/or best method ... wants for evidence.

If you consider that you are one of the tools that you're applying to change, then it makes sense to keep that tool functional. Look out for yourself, first, that you may aid others and larger efforts.

A useful example to me comes from the field of ag engineering, and a story I was told at Uni. The practice often makes use of minimal capital and equipment to accomplish major changes. One example is riverbed engineering.

One approach is the US Army Corps method of bulldozers, earth-moving equipment, dredges, concrete, and explosives.

The preferred method of the ag engineer in remote and low-income regions is the gabbion --- a cage made of wire holding stones. Placed in the streamflow, these use the power of the water itself to reshape the streambed in the desired manner --- directing water to or away from a bank, speeding or slowing flow, enhancing or slowing erosion. It's an application of an intervention to maximum effect with minimum effort.

(That's not to say there aren't problems which bulldozers, diesel, dynamite, and portland cement can't solve far more quickly. But where you're bootstrapping from a minimal position, the gabbion method has merits.)

And that's the essence of what I'm suggesting. Study the problem area, see where behaviour is most strongly influenced, and modify that point. Let the energies within the system do the rest. Judo and ju-jitsu work similarly. I've heard RMS's creation of the GNU GPL described as an example of "ju-jitsu law" --- it takes copyright and uses precisely the law's own strengths to work against it. A certain amount of change was accomplished.

Another great concept comes from the field of navigation by Charles H. Cotter: "The Art of ship handling involves the effective use of forces under control to overcome the effect of forces not under control."

Ship's captains don't recede within themselves to control their ships. They master the craft, learn the practice, read conditions, and act to maximum benefit. There's the natural "ship of state" metaphor, and ... it's not entirely applicable (countries are far more complex than ships, and tend not to have a unitary chain of authority). But the notion of working on the possible remains.