I'm not sure how long the OP has been an arm-chair social scientist, but I've been one for twenty-five years, and I feel like I might be able to share some insights.
Firstly, his thesis could be boiled down to a very simple question: "Why do people do what they do (instead of what I want them to do)?" You suggest that they are insufficiently self-reflective, not very world-wise, and perhaps just a bit self-centred. These are reasonable inferences, but they don't go very deeply into understand the psychology, beliefs and motivations of your stereotypical spoiled white kid.
A deeper question we might ask in response to your thesis is, "What's wrong with the world (and why is nobody fixing it)?" The sub-question might alternately be: "Why aren't enough people fixing it?" or "Why aren't the right people fixing it?" Neé spoiled rich kids.
The problem with both questions is that they are primarily underscored by the implicit question, "Why aren't more people like me (and why don't they believe and feel like I do)?" But the answer to that is simple: evolution. Biological evolution ensures that there is a wide variety of people, physiologically, and social evolution (not Social Darwinism, thank you -- no ranking is being proposed) ensures that there are a wide variety of belief systems and mental models of how the world works and why.
But let's, for the moment, make the (unfounded and highly unlikely) assumption that the OP's point of view is somehow more informed, insightful, rational, or just generally "better" than those of all the people whom he is criticizing. I mean, he wouldn't have made the argument if he didn't think it had more merit than other arguments in favour of "iterating" or whatever other less noble activity they are pursuing instead. And he may be right (it's only unlikely based on probability, and the apparent level of effort pursued in constructing said argument).
People do what they do because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that it is in their interests. Either directly, in terms of immediate material rewards, through indirect rewards (material, social or even spiritual), or future rewards to their offspring. That is a basic economic tenet that is difficult to ignore. (It is hard to disprove, partly because "rewards" are variable and ill-defined). Stated another way, people do things because they think (or feel) that it is right (or reasonable) to do, or just because they want to do them.
It may be for riches, or that may merely be a subordinate goal towards pleasure, happiness, fulfillment or meaning. My suspicion is that people are primarily motivated by status (a measure of what is meaningful) when they behave in ways that affect their social surroundings, but otherwise they like pleasure, whether sensual, aesthetic or moral (and the pride or satisfaction from doing good is definitely a pleasure, as is that of winning, which could be called a moral activity, if you believe you are better than other people and deserve to win).
But not only do people do what they believe is good for their interests, they also don't do things that they think are bad for their interests, which is the true meaning of "wasting time": actions without real consequence (as estimated by the agent). This isn't bad or evil. Most people simply do not know how to "change the world" in a manner which will satisfy the OP, or at best have a very vague notion, and very little reason to be confident that they could do it. In other words, people engage in activities which they consider to have a reasonable chance of success. Exactly how they arrived at their estimate of risk/reward is another question.
But in fact it is the ultimate question, since that is where the rubber meets the road. The extent to which someone is misinformed, delusional or outright insane is something that has to be determined for each individual. But we can generalize that the vast majority of people do not have the necessary knowledge, skills, insights and experience to go about saving the world. Nor do they have the right social connections, or affiliations with groups which are changing the world (and have no interest in becoming fund-raisers hanging out on malls and street corners), and are generally discouraged from participating in such marginal activities by their elders and role models, for many reasons (some or all of which may be ill-reasoned, based on false premises, and riddled with superstitions, false authority and bias, and yet are nevertheless core to the world view which these people have at their disposal).
So, for the OP's sake, maybe it's time that he revised his viewpoint on what is wrong with the world, and how to change it. Not by writing blog posts accusing others of failing to live up to his standards (yes, this could be ironic, but in fact I am not judging the OP's career or life goals, merely his argument), but instead by either a) trying to understand better why people don't, in fact, share his beliefs and values, and/or b) by learning how to impart his own wisdom in such a way that he has some modicum of hope in actually affecting the views of other people, rather than just appealing to a crowd of like-minded people with whom he can share his sense of superiority.
On the other hand, maybe that was his goal, and maybe he achieved it, so good for him!