Following your reasoning writing is an improvement of hieroglyphs and binary numbers improvement of kipu knots. And all started when fist civilizations started to have more crops they can eat so some people did not have to be farming?
First build then you improve it so creation is first. No other way around according to currently assumed approach. And sum of parts is not technical breakthrough, they might be enablers but not yet qualitative change.
Doesn't realy matter what you think
Any good working design/process is an accumulation of the prior solved problems.
Prototype ariplanes existed for hundred years, but with a horse or steam engine you can't get enought lift.
Sykorsky experienced with helicopters for a decade prior of the first working one, but the engines that he had was too weak to the job.
So prior of a certain point in time it was not possible to make the given design, after a certain point it was simply a probability function to see it .
If you design
something then you make transfomr your accumulated knowledge/experience into a working design.
You collected it by doing it prior,and solving the problems during the process.
So the end design is a result of prior process improvements and the experiences that you collected during the trial and error experiments.
Quantum computing is possible with quantum mechanics as an enabler. It is qualitavely new approach to computing and if semiconductor industry would not exist then with knowledge of quantum mechanics could be build anyway.
I can't see working quantum computers, but Mr Heisenberg defined the laws governing the interaction of the waves, so the simple knowledge of these laws doesn't enought to make a quantum computer.
There are many definitions of economical efficiency not one. What you mention sonds like a technical one. They are not equal but true connected.
BTW Pareto optimum rigs the bell?
The ammount of required work = the requried ammount of money that you have to spend the get the product/service, in a comptetitive market( cetnral planning you can't use it, but the central planning is not efficient by experience : ) )
So, arguing about this is like arguing about that 100 $ is more than 200$ ,and that is arithmetically wrong.
so still your feelings and hunch no hard numbers...may be true maybe not..like. BTW those who wash rarely working on infections Smile
Simply basic efficiency calculation.
Additionaly, infections / health problems introduce lost working days, and required care as additional cost.