Your comment reads as defensive, and as though you are intentionally missing the point. The point is: PG appears to be a dishonest writer. He is not writing with the evenhanded pursuit of truth in mind, but with a very particular, convenient (self-serving) truth to support. He seems to consistently ignore any strain of thought (of which there are many, see: the entire humanities) which would generate a more nuanced view.

GP is saying PG is probably wrong, and probably misleading many people. This is useful, even if its not the same as saying "here is proof he is wrong".

Nevertheless, to indulge you, I will say: PG is wrong. There is more to life and contributing to society than just coming up with new important ideas. Yes new important ideas can lead to more food, more materials, or even in some cases (though certainly not in PGs case) deeper relationships. But there are many meanings to life, and not all of them start with increasing productivity.

PG's new ideas aren't going to raise a kid. They're not going to save any souls, or save a relationship on its last legs. They're also not going to plant any crops, or build any houses.

They are useful, but they are not everything, or even the most important thing. In fact, they're a luxury. They're one of the least important things in my life.