What is good for you is good for me, if my lot is made more good at the expense of making yours less good then the premise of our existence is not reaching its full potential. This cannot be seen clearly by a juvenile, but is at least understandable to an adult.

I'm always a bit amused by the tacit assumption that the human species is the be all and end all on the evolutionary ladder, rather than just another step.

Our concentration on the human condition and our desire for answers to God, the universe and everything reveals a need in our evolution for a sense of place in it all, preferably with responsibilty for our being going to some outside entity----God, aliens etc.

Unless we become extinct, we are. Species evolve far too slowly in comparsion to how fast humans develop, so as long as we exist we wont be out-smarted by anything from this planet. Off course, we may just evolve into something else ourselves, but we wont lose the sense of that we are "humanity" along the way.

Don't you mean when we become extinct? Do you think that our species has what it takes to be around million years from today?

Yes. We may willingly abandon human form though.

As Manored says, "too much of our society is turned towards gaining money from others rather than "producing" it." Makes one wonder how this state of affairs could be, as it is not so much forced upon us, as it is succumbed to by us. This must be testament to the infinite power of allowance, through us, and by us. Whatever we allow will come into being? Well, the proof is in the pudding. But why do we allow outside influence to dictate our actions to the degree that we do? I think that if we forget the eating and drinking part of survival, at our core is an inherent conscious desire for harmonious peace, perhaps even nirvana. The human consciousness responds to stimulation, sure, but I'm trying to think of a situation that didn't have as its outcome the desire for peace, a status quo from which to experience the potential of just being. All influence over us is allowed for the sole reason of peace. From interpersonal peace to financial peace to war peace, the pull is the same and we will allow any compromise that promises to end debate.
I beat this to death only to illustrate that what we allow is far more powerful than what we instigate, and so the answer to "Does anyone of you think the world can change" , yes. It has already changed into the one that we/you allow, the one we/you personally inhabit.
Can the world become the Utopia that each of us individually imagines it could be?
The consciousness we all share has already become the reality we experience, and depends on our allowance for the form it takes. The catch 22 is that same allowance provides for our mode of survival, which we propagate through subscription. Withdraw subscription and the form of reality changes, and, as our picture of reality is painted by money, your withdrawal from any financial instrument will render a part of reality unconscious of that financial potential.
Will everything fall down if we do that? It has fallen down already, only our subscription to it holds the threads together and in return we get to survive from one day to the next.
God, I'm depressing myself, get to the point!
The truth is no one has any power over us except that which we allow. Allow leadership through you rather than of you, and support nothing that does not exist for our common benefit.
This might cover the cows question too.

bsfree, I see it all a bit different to you bsfree. I am the creator of all that is, there is no person place or thing that can cause me to suffer any form of discomfort or sickness,unless I allow it or create it.

The abundance in my life may have many channels but there is only one source, that it all comes from within me, what I see out there is a clear expression of my own consciousness. I know I can change any part of that out there, simply by removing all judgement. Richard

Many people want to change the world by leading others. They think that if the people just listen to them they would understand and everyone would agree, if they could just reach out to everyone. There lies the problem. Politics are boring to most people.

Instead i think it would serve better to get off the pedestal and instead think of creating ingenous ways to empower people. An audience of performers, if you will.

Take this for an example. You are in a band, with a really important message, and you want to deliver it to the world. But unless you sign on to a major label, you will not have your voice heard. Almost nobody will listen to you. So what do you do.

Unfortunately most bands end up selling out to major labels and losing the message due to censorship (in the sense that exists in the music industry). They stop playing those shows to 40 people in a small intimate venue and play in big arenas were the connection is lost.

What would make a change is to refuse to sell out. To keep playing those small shows where you can actually get across to some, and show them that they can do what you do and start their own bands. Now thats revolution!

The problem is we always think in numbers. If reaching 40 people is good, surely reaching 2000 would be better?

So i guess what i was trying to show with that story is that the model could be applied to anything. Instead of changing or saving the world by yourself, enable and empower others to do so. So the communion of all people working locally will bring out that change. wether that be science, spiritual, philosphy, life, politics or whatever.

What will be left to think should you die of cancer? That you caused it to happen to yourself? What are you saying here Richard?

I think the world can change, although I don't think the world will change--or at least change enough to make a difference.

You can't wake up in the same world twice.

If you haven't noticed the world has changed, at least my world as well as yours. You now have another friend. Me!

I'm hoping that will make a difference for both of us.

Or once for that matter!