4 ms·
The human population isn't really important to that chart. "Below, we can see the number of acclaimed scientists (in blue) and artists (in red), divided by the
by mcguire 5y ago
The human population isn't really important to that chart.
"Below, we can see the number of acclaimed scientists (in blue) and artists (in red), divided by the effective population (total human population with the education and access to contribute to these fields)."
The denominator has increased massively faster than the base population.
- regularfry 5y agoThat's only true if acclaim scales with population. Or more specifically, if the "number of acclaimed scientists..." would scale with the total number of scientists in the absence of a falloff in rate of their creation. That's the point: I don't think it does. I think it's reasonable to assume that in a larger population, a given level of acclaim is harder to achieve for any given individual. Same fish, bigger pond.