For a given amount of scarcity at a point in time, the fewer people who have it, the more of it they each must have. For the fewest to have it supposes that it is better for 100 to die of starvation than for 400 to live on short rations, better for one person to suffer abominably if it enables everyone else to live in paradise. Is this your view?
The number of people killed by scarcity is the measure of scarcity. At least until there’s enough that nobody is being killed by it. There’s no point in trying thought discussion about whether scarcity changes nature after we stop killing people with it, not until we’re a lot closer to that.
For a given amount of scarcity at a point in time, the fewer people who have it, the more of it they each must have. For the fewest to have it supposes that it is better for 100 to die of starvation than for 400 to live on short rations, better for one person to suffer abominably if it enables everyone else to live in paradise. Is this your view?
No, and you failed to comprehend what I was saying as soon as you said “For a given amount of scarcity”.
Also, the fewer people die, the less scarcity there was. Pretty much linearly.
So you mean as little scarcity as possible? At what point does the number of affected people enter into it?
The number of people killed by scarcity is the measure of scarcity. At least until there’s enough that nobody is being killed by it. There’s no point in trying thought discussion about whether scarcity changes nature after we stop killing people with it, not until we’re a lot closer to that.
This actually wasn’t obvious to me from the OP, fwiw.