Lately there's been an issue that nettled me a little. I was asked a  question which rather led to a debate over whether things will happen regardless of individuals. For example, would India still have had freedom regardless of Mahatma Gandhi, because there was also a whole lot of mounting criticism of the British rule at the time? My answer is a bit wavery. I could either argue yes, so a very small extent, because eventually the angry but disorganised mob might have stopped the critical musings amongst themselves and done something, or I could also argue a very strong NO. To bring about a change or reform, the message has to start somewhere. Whether it was one random person who decided to hug strangers which escalated into the free hugs campaign (which they had the audacity to ban in some schools- the outrage) or Gandhi urging a nonviolent but assertive demonstration- however much intention there might be for a change, someone has to be the prism that focuses all that energy so that it can then turn into a rainbow of result; otherwise therell just be well meaning light fragments all humming aong by themselves. I think the notion that "well, stuff would have happened at some stage" idea is insulting to the people that are working as hard as they possibly can to make a difference. It's basically saying that they may as well not try and do anything and that it's a waste of time. It's passive and a passing off of responsibility. In my view we should all be helping out as much as we can, wherever we can and bandying around a throw away line of "oh, doesn't matter, it'll happen in the end" isn't really the best way to be looking at most things that we DO have the power to try and bring about a healthy, beneficial change for.