I guess that is the problem - if you can't get people involved until after the fact, you cede the initiative. Can you find a balance? Only if you convince them the consequences of not doing so puts them at risk. How do you convince them of the risk? That one is tough because people prefer to believe bad things will only happen to other people - the greater their disassociation with those other people, the more probable the bad thing will strike there and not elsewhere.

The alternative approach may be to approach involvement as a "good" thing. A duty or obligation like in President Kennedy's speech. These days however we've bred an insular society with tools that promote individualism to nth degree.

It will require charismatic, political leadership to shake people loose from i-pods, game boys, and self-absorbtion as long as things are perceived as being good enough.