I like the homelessness analogy. If a town of 3,000 people had 1 homeless person, there is a high likelihood that said person would ultimately encounter an altr

I like the homelessness analogy. If a town of 3,000 people had 1 homeless person, there is a high likelihood that said person would ultimately encounter an altruistic person and get some assistance towards ceasing being homeless, yet, in a densely populated area with the same ratio of homed to homeless most of the homeless people will either receive no assistance or very little, right? At a certain scale the issue requires a altruistic leader to marshal the forces to combat the societal problem, and while there are many qualified people for just such a task, the task of finding such a person, appointing them with the appropriate authority, and then giving them the the tools and resources they need to succeed are themselves tasks that require long unbroken chains of altruism to succeed, even though on a 1:1 ratio the problem is the exact same proportion.