It was a communicational attempt based on a overly simple model dividing the set of the "swamped, idle, understriving" long Paretian tail and the "active, daring, inquisitive" "fewer" - without taking into account the actual real-world complexity (e.g. of relative continuity in more dimensions between the sets).
In those paragraphs, within context, it just meant "some have achieved much for the benefit of the population, but the population as an aggregate does not show the same spirit and ability".
To define the sets of the "well natured" vs "larvatic", the suggestive discriminator of being "benefactors to the whole" was picked.
So,
> It's a mixed bag... much like the rest of society
Yes, the point was that some strive and achieve some progressive "status", "being", "nature", and many do not: it is a wish that such good condition will be largely shared in a future society.
It is a wish that Paretian distribution is transformed into a widespread distribution of desirable «intelligence and character», as a condition for «pr[ide] and justified superiority».
In those paragraphs, within context, it just meant "some have achieved much for the benefit of the population, but the population as an aggregate does not show the same spirit and ability".
To define the sets of the "well natured" vs "larvatic", the suggestive discriminator of being "benefactors to the whole" was picked.
So,
> It's a mixed bag... much like the rest of society
Yes, the point was that some strive and achieve some progressive "status", "being", "nature", and many do not: it is a wish that such good condition will be largely shared in a future society.
It is a wish that Paretian distribution is transformed into a widespread distribution of desirable «intelligence and character», as a condition for «pr[ide] and justified superiority».