I had a slightly different read on the article’s conclusion - mostly because it doesn’t prescribe a solution to the issue.

If you have 100K people building a service for dog walkers, and we only need 100 people to build that service.. you can end up at an interesting conclusion.

If we had the means to provide people with a basic means of living, say shelter/food/water/safety-nets, then would 100K people be building that service for dog walkers?

I think the answer is no. They’d be doing vastly different things with their time on this Earth.

It’s a bit of a stretch, but I believe the article doesn’t prescribe a solution because there are many directions you could head from this observation.