Good point, though it’s more important than just “appeasing” some people.
To think of “saving the world” is to adopt a god’s-eye view, which tempts one to think of solutions appropriate only for a god, or tyrant. I’m not against ever looking at things from a god’s eye view, but too many things, like globes, maps and “International News” columns tend to make us imagine we are really good at it when we aren’t, and in any event, if we do, we should very deliberately climb down and remind ourselves of our true dimensions.
I don’t mind the question though, if asked in a tongue-in-cheek way.
OP mentions “I used less water in the shower”, so is obviously not only looking for extraordinary outcomes. So “saving the world” does indeed sound silly.
Perhaps ‘improving the world’ or some other phrasing could appease the people who don’t like the sound of “saving the world”.
Then again, perhaps not.
Good point, though it’s more important than just “appeasing” some people.
To think of “saving the world” is to adopt a god’s-eye view, which tempts one to think of solutions appropriate only for a god, or tyrant. I’m not against ever looking at things from a god’s eye view, but too many things, like globes, maps and “International News” columns tend to make us imagine we are really good at it when we aren’t, and in any event, if we do, we should very deliberately climb down and remind ourselves of our true dimensions.
I don’t mind the question though, if asked in a tongue-in-cheek way.
But that’s so generic that it misses the point. Saving the world is extraordinary. What things are you doing towards extraordinary outcomes?
OP mentions “I used less water in the shower”, so is obviously not only looking for extraordinary outcomes. So “saving the world” does indeed sound silly.