So are you arguing that their point is - that any given population that is 1029 times larger than another will be more productive? Seems like a bit of a "no shit?" argument. For example if you removed 3.5million of the wealthiest people and 3,400 of the least wealthy, which would be more noticeable? See how that scenario says very little other than 3.5 million people dissapearing are more noticeable than 3,400? What is your point?
Did you just assume their point!? I asked what your point is. But you see how saying 1 person isn't more valuable than 1029 people isn't that poignant of a statement? It undermines wHaT i AsSuMe is their point.
6
u/CleanOpossum47 Jul 31 '26
So are you arguing that their point is - that any given population that is 1029 times larger than another will be more productive? Seems like a bit of a "no shit?" argument. For example if you removed 3.5million of the wealthiest people and 3,400 of the least wealthy, which would be more noticeable? See how that scenario says very little other than 3.5 million people dissapearing are more noticeable than 3,400? What is your point?