This seems a bit fallacious to me, since exceptional people would exist regardless. Granted, you probably meant that common people doing common jobs makes it p

This seems a bit fallacious to me, since exceptional people would exist regardless. Granted, you probably meant that common people doing common jobs makes it possible for those exceptional people to do the exceptional things, but I take issue even with that. It seems based on the premises, 1. that, absent technology, providing for basic human needs would take up all of an individual's productive time, 2. that art and science are similarly completely consuming (or, perhaps, that the outcome is worthless if not worked on full time), and 3. that a group effort at providing for basic human needs provides no surplus beyond a sum of the effort of the individuals. I assert that all three premises are patently false.