[roenxi]

What do you want it to be synonymous to? The people who've managed to do great work without generating large investment returns not that large. Compared to the number of ambitious people presently looking for advice it is small.

[gjm11]

There are and have been lots of people doing great work without generating large investment returns, because they aren't doing the kind of work that generates large investment returns at all.

Bach, Mozart, Beethoven. Newton, Gauss, Euler. Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe. Faraday, Darwin, Einstein.

(If you're looking for greatness on their scale, then of course the number will be "not that large" because work that great is very rare. But there are plenty of artists and scientists and whatnot achieving lesser levels of greatness and most of them are not getting large investment returns.)

[shimman]

I disagree. There are millions of local activists that are improving the immediate lives of their communities in real impactful ways that never see the light of day. Starting after school programs or setting up mutual aid stations or community gardens or creating tenant unions, are all things any one of us can do to improve the lives of those around us.

If you're great work only consists of work that generates money, then you're neglecting the entire spectrum of the human experience.

[roenxi]

> There are millions of local activists that are improving the immediate lives of their communities in real impactful ways...

Most people manage this. It is hard to earn a paycheck if someone isn't improving the immediate lives of their communities in real impactful ways. Great work has to be something a bit more. There are a lot of thresholds for that which could be reasonable, but if we aren't going to go with solid investor returns someone is going to have to come up with a rough standard that can be talked about.

> Starting after school programs or setting up mutual aid stations or community gardens or creating tenant unions, are all things any one of us can do to improve the lives of those around us.

I mean, sure. But my mind automatically drifts to China and the millions of people being dragged out of poverty by sweatshops and investors making out like bandits. Industrial improvements to living standards, driven by profits, are a lot faster and larger than people setting up mutual aid stations. The scales are just different once people figure out a way to improve the world profitably.

There are examples of people who managed to scale up their work to do amazing things without making a profit along the way (major religious figures spring to mind), but generally it is just easier to have a sustainable impact if the returns are good too.