Well, it's good to see that if you completely contradicted your last post, it was at least for a positive turn.
Your reference to Columbus at the end is inspiring, but inappropriate. Not everyone has the potential to be a Great Man, nor would humanity be served by such a reality. Joe Whitepicketfence isn't going to conquer the oceans or found a new nation -- and would you really want him doing so anyway?
What you call complacency, I call living within one's means. Not everyone is capable of achieving monumental life goals, and not everyone has the irrepressible drive to even attempt to do so. This is by no fault of their own -- and what's more, who are you to say that they are "wasting" their life?
There is a sliding rule for achievement. For some people, simply providing financial security for their children is the fulfilment of their life's work. Again, are you willing to dismiss that as mere "complacency?" Having said that, your dismissal of the white picket fence, suburban life is ignorant at best. For many, your "wasted life" is the object of their dreams and your "complacency" is a small price to pay for a stable life.
Now I'll address your concern assuming we're discussing the limited pool of those who have potential to become Great Men (a general term that is applicable to women too). Human existence thrives on one thing: stability. We form families to codify bonds with a group of people on whom we can be sure; we create social rules and norms to assure behavioral consistency and to formulate a set of expectations (for example, you can be fairly certain that you aren't going to be run over by a car if you're on the sidewalk because there are enforced regulations against this); we establish routines so that we can take the unnecessary guesswork out of our daily lives. This is a natural human tendency and there is nothing wrong with it.
Obviously, the pitfall of this stability is unnecessary complacency. To prevent this, there has never been any shortage of those who are fully capable of stirring the pot. Plato, Aristotle, Martin Luther, and Martin Luther King, Jr. fit this description; however, so do Alexander the Great, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. The agitation that breeds such Great Men does not always compel them to do good things, only Great ones.
It is the infinitely important responsibility of those who would wish to do Great Things to ensure that these things would work exclusively for the benefit of human society. To stir the pot is an incredibly dangerous step to take; the disruption it spawns in society is devastating. If that disorder doesn't work towards some necessarily good end, it is not only a wasted effort, but one that is extremely detrimental to the very society which you set out to improve.
My point is that the world needs a certain amount of "complacency" (read: stability) to facilitate normal human existence. If you want something done specifically, it's your responsibility to do it. Just be prepared for the immense sacrifice that Great Actions normally inflict upon their actors.
You should read some Nietzsche. He's big on achievement and Great Men, but watch out -- in order to buy into the theory which he espouses, you have to be ready to detach moral judgment from action. That's a step most are not willing to take, and for good reason.
