The Pareto Principle, the 80/20 rule, where 20% owns 80% of the wealth. The idea in itself was supposedly applicable in other areas like efficiency, where 80% of the output comes from 20% of the workers.
While this is applicable to certain scenarios, using it as a catch all can be detrimental. My though about this is, in this world we were meant to serve each other and the higher up we are in the chain, then we have a bigger role to play. To be called “vital” should not be self serving rather it should serve the interest of the people. The world really isn’t in an ideal place right now, arguably people shift things towards their advantage. In this world, certain things are needed in order to move things properly and accordingly, this hurts because often times the interest of one view does not justify the interest of other another’s view. This is similar to what I wrote about earlier in the “Trolley Problem“. The “vital few” often times need to take care of the own tribe first which can be contradicting to the bigger picture. Power and control also play a part, because often we can be persuaded by different things depending on the situation that we are in.
What happens if we are on the other side of the Pareto principle. Do we just stay still and wait until the 20% dictates what should be done? Maybe yes, if we believe in them even if it complicates all the things in our lives. Maybe no, if we want to move on our own way. In life there are certain boundaries, and we don’t necessarily have the means to cross those boundaries, I mean chance happens to all of us after-all. I think what matters is what we do with what we have, it doesn’t mean we don’t try to broaden our horizons, rather it just means that we hold on to the 20% so that we could better serve the 80%.