<p>Hi all after reading this long thread with so many different points of view i thought i had to give my judgement on it.
As for the thing about following your passions, arunemo i agree that one who follows the less trodden and less ambitions(according to some) path sacrificing his own needs over others is great. It takes a lot of courage to give up on your personal comforts and selflessly dedicate yourself to the service of the community. But i believe the community is secondary to one’s family. To make my point clear i would like to elaborate on it a little further. Lets say we have this hypothetical youth worker just like your friend who loves his work and cares for nothing else and is fully devoted to social service. All goes well for few years, he or she marries happily, as time passes, they have a kid, he lives in whatever little he has but happily because he knows his father/mother is working for a great cause and even assists them. They soon have a second child, he is born intelligent and is good at studies and as he grows up he needs more money for his education, good high schools cost a lot, so do books and other accessories like computers etc. He doesn’t complain because he knows his father/mother is a good man/women and doesn’t want to hurt them so he accepts what he has tries to get best of what he has, he manages great grades in a not so great high school, tries his best but since some guy of equal intelligence had more resources, the other guy beats him almost every time. This frustrates him and in the end he ends up well but he knows he could end up better only if he had more money. If the youth worker had say a rich parent who left some decent financial resources he would still have done social service with equal passion and dedication but would have been able to cater to his family better. I know of many scientists who were really dedicated to science and spent their entire life in pursuit of science but their families suffered, i understand those times were different but still there likes of Nobel, the founder of nobel prize, who earned money and still catered to the society and their families responsibilities and i think they could cater better to the society, i’m not trying to compare or anything but still people who do social service with lot of money behind them have better results, yes you can go and give the needy love, affection, friendship etc but even what they want ultimately is some sort of monetary or tangible assets. It is not that only money is necessary or only we can go without money all together. We need both money and all the abstract nouns like love, friendship etc. It just we need to find the right balance for ourselves. For some it is more tilted towards the money side for some it tilted more towards the other side, but all need both. It is not the question whether one should earn more money or not it is what one thinks is best for them and their future and the future of those who they bring in this world.</p>