I guess I just don't see it as this binary situation where you either have to be the absolute best in the world at what you do, or you're not contributing at all to mankind. And that's the feeling I often get when people discuss these kinds of topics (not that I'm implying I get that feeling from your response specifically, or if I do I'm probably overlaying it with other discussions I've had on this topic).

I personally think one can excel from hard work alone. Maybe you can't excel to the degree of a Hawking or a Jordan in their relevant fields, but does that necessarily invalidate anything you have achieved? There's always going to be someone better at X than you are, for some value of X, at some particular time and place. I see an unfortunate possibility of unrealised potential if people - particularly young people - get it in their heads that if they can't be the absolute best at something then they may as well not even try.

Additionally, even Hawking or Jordan don't operate in a vacuum. What about all the people that have supported them over their lives, all the people they learned from, who - in isolation - the world might consider to be "lesser" people. Would Hawking/Jordan have been able to do what they've done without all that support?