[

what, if any, is then the incentive to actively try to have an impact on other individuals?

I assume a true ethical egoist, one who believes we ought to act only for our self interest, would state that we should actively try to have an impact on other individuals, if this impact would retroactively have some positive effect on the agent. If we for instance assume the politician, having to promote X or Y to get elected, this politician could actively pursue to achieve promise X as this might positively help the lives of the politician’s voters, and thereby secure a possible re-election, a better office, or even just a higher regard of their own moral/political status.

Egoism prioritizes self-interest and minimizes, or avoids, selfish conduct which fails to promote one's self-interest. Ethical Egoism, I surmise, denotes a conception of 'self' which is optimally inclusive of others such that altruistic conduct constitutes the sufficient condition for prioritizing - advancing - one's self-interest (aka "enlightened self-interest"). Makes sense? If not, point out what I'm missing. (NB: Spinoza is a touchstone.)

What, if any, is then the incentive to actively try to have an impact on other individuals? — Alejandro

Presumably to improve the world so that one has a nicer environment in which to live.

What, if any, is then the incentive to actively try to have an impact on other individuals? — Alejandro

You mean from the standpoint of an ethical egoist? A complete egoist would of course only try to impact others when he sees the opportunity to personally benefit from it. It is to be assumed that only a real advantage would count as a benefit and not just any amusement that a person may get from using others as playthings. But how are we to distinguish a real benefit from an imaginary one? Many people certainly get a lot of enjoyment from wielding power over their fellow humans and if you count that as a legitimate befit, anything should be allowed including bullying and torture.

However, if the assumption of ethical egoism is that everyone is better off when left to themselves, unnecessary impact must be avoided. What would then be called necessary for one’s own benefit? If it’s your goal to make money, it’s impossible to do that without impacting others: You work for them, or they work for you. If you made them work harder and paid them less, you would have a greater impact and benefit more. The strange thing is that if you paid them more than you had to, you would be helping them while impacting them less. Ethical egoism is hardly consistent.

Ethical egoism is like the race of giant dwarves.

It is part of the mythology that capitalists, (not capital) do all the hard work and deserve all the rewards. It is always liable to be popular to maintain that what you ought to do is just what you want to do, and feeling virtuous is one of the luxuries the rich like to purchase from moral philosophers.

Meanwhile, we peasants are used to there being a conflict between what one wants to do, and what one feels one ought to do. That is why we have a different terminology for them - wants desires wishes on the one hand and obligations commitments oughts on the other. Without this conflict, there would be no need for a separate moral language at all.

Much as I would like to continue pontificating, I have to go and assist with the washing up.