Why is it considered an achievement to be best at something when adaptability is one of the strongest traits of humans?
I mean... lets take the worlds fastest swimmer as an example. For each group of people that has an interest in something theres maybe 95% who doesent care about it. So "Bob" is the best swimmer in the world. Meaningless achievement. Because there are probably thousands if not millions of people with the same potential, if they actually had the time, interest, diett and training to reach the same goal. Because of the extremely narrowed numbers of competitors, being the "best" at something really just boils down to being the best among a few people dedicating their life to the same thing.
Lets say this guy "Smith" is the best in the world at standing on one hand while singing the Sweding national anthem backwards while balancing a football on his left foot. Sure... he is the best, but any human could do this with the same training and interest - at this task/"sport" or whatever.
Is this a wrong assumtion, or am I so right Im just pointing out the obvious?
This is ofcourse looking at it from a scientific/biological viewpoint when it comes to human potential and context, and not a commercial one. Looking at it this way arent such achievements utterly pointless and meaningless? For each one that breaks a record - there are countless other potentials that biologically could have done it BETTER.