Interest rate targeting uses an unemployment buffer to keep wages and therefore prices under control. Poverty for those in work is entirely part of the plan. To fix the poverty problem you need to fix the structural viewpoint and return to the Beveridge condition - everybody must have an alternative living wage job offer available to them so that job competition works properly in favour of people. There must always be more jobs available than people that want them, not slightly fewer.
But that then runs into what Kalecki called "The Political Aspects of Full Employment" - a recommended read if you haven't already: https://mronline.org/2010/05/22/political-aspects-of-full-em...
Truly a 'wicked problem' - tied up with the concept of power
Or, if the dogs are intelligent, they could split those 19 bones to 20 pieces...
Let's assume you are talking about sharing, as that's what the original point was about. Specifically the sharing of 19 bones among 20 dogs, by dividing up the bones.
Assumign by 'naive' you mean wrong, are you saying that it is simply a more optimal situation for one dog to go hungry?
Does the one dog always go hungry, or does one dog (but a different one each time) go hungry?
Do we just let the one dog go hungry each time intentionally, so that in future no dog goes hungry? What if then one day there are only 18 bones for 19 dogs? Do we let that dog die too?
What if a group of 18 dogs is required to take down an animal that provides enough bones, but we let the two other dogs die because sharing is naive?
Well, that pretty fundamentally calls into question rather a lot of all the principles civilisation is founded upon and which permeate nature, even (nature!).
So you better provide some amazing scientifically backed proof of that statement. No, Atlas Shrugged is not scientific proof.
The dog can die. It isn't my problem.