Molson Hart

If you triple the number of humans, you triple the number of @elonmusk's. Not all humans are created equal both in their potential to be Elon Musk and their carbon emissions. For example, most of the world's young are in poor education, low-carbon emission Africa.

In any case, I say triple the number of humans. We have plenty of space and I'm optimistic that triple the brainpower outweighs triple the waste.

I don't think you realize that you or I could be an "Elon". Its a matter of will power plus some variables, not innate genius. Just look at the populations of the Netherlands, Israel, or India. 3x/30x more or less humans does not have an effect on this equation.

You made 3 points. First is wrong. Second is right. Third is wrong; talent is bell curved. If, as you say, more people can be Elon than people think, then increasing population increases the number of Elon’s by increasing the population of those who can be. 70 IQ cannot be Elon.

Talent, SATs, GPAs, IQ may follow a bell curve but talent is not directly correlated to output. People can do big things if they have the willpower to do so. If your logic were correct, the largest organization would be the best at achieving a particular mission. Not true.

I’m interested in your argument and I believe in ideas like the Pareto principle, but I don’t believe more people equals better results. Firms like McKinsey drop their bottom 10% YoY so the middle of their curve increases as well.

I didn't say more people working together. I said more people. If anyone with an IQ over 130 can be Elon and IQ is normally distributed, increasing the total number of people increases the number of people who can be Elon. I don't know how you could argue with that.

Your math is sound. My main argument to your outlook is IQ ≠ the answer to this hypothetical question