Okay, so zero-sum games and scarcity economics are based on the idea that resources/valuables are limited and I'm all in favor of agreeing that there is no end to resources, creativity, or human sympathy. And I would even be willing to take that a step further and say that, no matter what the problem, there will be people willing to devote their time to it.
But the crux is not available resource: the key is defining something as a problem. Are schools the problem, or poverty? Are broken windows the problem, or mandatory minimums? Take away the assumptions from this article, and you aren't left with much more than a half-reasoned book report. I would be much more inspired if the conclusion of this article was something like "nuanced solutions are the only option" rather than what was presented: "be excellent to each other".