> And if everyone can't do it, nobody should be able to So nobody should be able to take on any occupation except farmer or hunter-gatherer, because we would g

> And if everyone can't do it, nobody should be able to So nobody should be able to take on any occupation except farmer or hunter-gatherer, because we would go extinct if everyone was a pharmacist or cop or baker? I think you’ve got the notion of universalizability from moral philosophy mixed up with economics. If half of society doesn’t need a “career” job to get by, that means society can be maintained without that much specialized labor. In fact, I’m under the impression that our society requires large quantities of unspecialized labor to function - and the dissatisfaction with such jobs (or rather, the conditions thereof) are the subject of this article.