Well, P could take steps to help U learn to help W. e.g. giving them a bit of water, and training them to help W; instead of blaming U for the poor coconut yiel

Well, P could take steps to help U learn to help W. e.g. giving them a bit of water, and training them to help W; instead of blaming U for the poor coconut yield. Which in turn would help W yield more coconuts, or be flexible to diversify how they get water to be robust against the coconut market. I get how you example illustrates how the amount of P's aren't dependant on the number of U's, but I think this example is too microscopic. I think there's another factor to consider. W doesn't give water directly to P, there's G who takes a little bit of water from everyone. G has enough water for themselves, and instead of drinking just the water they need, or helping U to make their island economy better, they decide to bathe in the water. Then when P wants some water like G has promised and there's none left, they blame U. Which makes W and P angry at U. The situation is more like G is taking a little bit of water from everyone, and there's yet another person on the island E. E is in charge of delegating coconut fetching tasks to W and up until recently P. G decided E should also be in charge of distributing water that comes from G to W and P. E realizes that once P leaves, there will only be one coconut fetcher. So, worried that they won't be getting enough water to give to G, E gives less water to W instead of hiring and training U to help this coconut fetching business. This isn't good because eventually W will become a P, and E will have no one, and G will not be getting water from E. Everyone becomes a U because G decided to give water to E to delegate instead of directly to W, P, and U.