Ageist because someone 31, 41, or 51 could achieve great things for humanity, yet doesnt deserve our accolade?
And strange because if 200 find a way to revolutionize the lives of billions. We still have to pick 30? Why not celebrate everyone who markedly improves the lives of 10% of the planet or some other absolute measure?
I mean, you could say this about anything. The Nobel Prize has limited slots. Nobody's saying those are the only people on earth worth honoring.
I'd say the real problem is putting too great an emphasis on youth and hustle. Who makes their magnum opus in their 20s? Why would you even want to? Most people's greatest accomplishments happen in their 30s and 40s, even 50s. Setting up early burnout as something to aspire to feels pathological.
But being newsworthy has (monetary) value so this list, which used to be a metric, has become a target, and per Goodhart's Law is therefore no longer a good metric.
I predict another such list will arise, make those chasing 30<30 look foolish, and the cycle will begin anew.
But I'd say that the peak accomplishment of someone who peaks later is probably better than the peak accomplishment of someone who peaks early. So in that sense we're celebrating the wrong thing.
Let's just be honest with ourselves about how lucky we are to be born into our station, both as technocrats and as narcissist snowflakes.