pdq, mentioned above the subject of control with respect to ensuring peace ("As the circle gets larger, we have less and less control. By the time we are dealing with nations of 1/2 billion people or religions of a billion people, each of us, as individuals has little or no control over what happens").

While on the face of it it seems a realistic attitude, it niggled at me, because it feels like a shrugging of shoulders, almost defeatist (not characterising anyone here, just making conversation, right?).

To counter that, the example of Ghandi comes to mind. He had no control over his countrymen, he did not issue edicts or orders for others to follow. All he did was state his view and provide an example with his behaviour. Yet, see how easily he influenced events in his country, not to mention attitudes worldwide.

Or the guy who was seen by millions trying to block the tank with his body in Tienanmen Square. He too influenced attitudes well beyond his immediate span of control.

They were both just individuals, yet it seems that they could influence outcomes outside their immediate circle. It may take sacrifice to achieve it. But then, it all depends on how strongly you feel about something.

And I think that this willingness to pay a high price is a telling point. The flower-power movement could/should have had a more far reacihng effect than it did, for example. It was full of benign (and often naive) intentions. They lost out because few were prepared to back their views to the end. And as they grew older they allowed daily compromise to eat away at their ideals. Which is the story of adulthood, for most of us.

"...But we've arrived; and as we pat each other's backs
our principles we now betray.
And year on year, as we 'progress' and we 'advance'
it's not just hair that's turning grey"
("The Flowers And The Guns")