I don’t think this is a useful simplification. The variance in how many people benefit, and how deeply they benefit (or can in the future be expected to benefit) is many-dimensional.
Further, most of your scalable examples end up having an inverse relationship between how many COULD be served and how many are ACTUALLY served, let alone how significantly. Writing is a tough gig, for instance—not only are you competing globally, you’re competing with existing works. And very VERY few writers have a significant impact on a reader’s life.
sure, I agree that writing is a tough gig and the distribution of what is read how much is pareto, still however the writers contribute to the chance that they improve the top writings that are read the most.
I think I’m much less interested in how deeply poeple benefit, but more in how many of them can potentially benefit and whether this scales roughly with the effort e.g. professions where by spending X effort I can serve Y people and if I wanted to serve 2Y people I would have to spend 2X effort (chef/teacher/hairdresser...) don’t fall into the same category as writing.
Maybe a better way of thinking about it is as follows: If additional new 1000 people are added to the population with a usual distribution of skills/professions....what portion of work they do would be contributing to the rest of the already existing population vs just work needed for them to self-sustain and cater to themselves (obviously with substitutions—e.g. if someone from the “new” people cooks food for the “old” ones, but someone from “old” has to cook for someone from the “new”—this does not count as contributing).
I don’t think this is a useful simplification. The variance in how many people benefit, and how deeply they benefit (or can in the future be expected to benefit) is many-dimensional.
Further, most of your scalable examples end up having an inverse relationship between how many COULD be served and how many are ACTUALLY served, let alone how significantly. Writing is a tough gig, for instance—not only are you competing globally, you’re competing with existing works. And very VERY few writers have a significant impact on a reader’s life.
sure, I agree that writing is a tough gig and the distribution of what is read how much is pareto, still however the writers contribute to the chance that they improve the top writings that are read the most.
I think I’m much less interested in how deeply poeple benefit, but more in how many of them can potentially benefit and whether this scales roughly with the effort e.g. professions where by spending X effort I can serve Y people and if I wanted to serve 2Y people I would have to spend 2X effort (chef/teacher/hairdresser...) don’t fall into the same category as writing.
Maybe a better way of thinking about it is as follows: If additional new 1000 people are added to the population with a usual distribution of skills/professions....what portion of work they do would be contributing to the rest of the already existing population vs just work needed for them to self-sustain and cater to themselves (obviously with substitutions—e.g. if someone from the “new” people cooks food for the “old” ones, but someone from “old” has to cook for someone from the “new”—this does not count as contributing).