That question presupposes that the only people it is worthwhile to save from starvation is the one who grows up to make a large impact on their country. It's the sort of logic that I find very dangerous.

The question presupposes that you cannot possibly determine this in advance and therefore all are worth saving.

Let us say that you knew with absolute certainty that none of them would grow up to revolutionise their society. Would you still save them, or would you let them die?

It's a pointless question as it is absolutely impossible to predict. So we continue to attempt to save them all. They will make other contributions too, or their children.

So you value people solely by their contributions to society. I do not.

By their potential to be meaningful in the framework of our existence. Yes.

I am not advocating for the use of probabilities, but instead possibilities.