In a 1938 article, MIT’s president argued that technical progress didn’t mean fewer jobs. He’s still right.
Compton drew a sharp distinction between the consequences of technological progress on “industry as a whole” and the effects, often painful, on individuals.
For “industry as a whole,” he concluded, “technological unemployment is a myth.” That’s because, he argued, technology "has created so many new industries” and has expanded the market for many items by “lowering the cost of production to make a price within reach of large masses of purchasers.” In short, technological advances had created more jobs overall. The argument—and the question of whether it is still true—remains pertinent in the age of AI.
Then Compton abruptly switched perspectives, acknowledging that for some workers and communities, “technological unemployment may be a very serious social problem, as in a town whose mill has had to shut down, or in a craft which has been superseded by a new art.”
That's interesting, though their own map benefits from their definition of B (the number of boundary cuts an arbitrary line segment needs to cross), because this metric does not take into account how far away the elements on the map are from each other. E.g. the cuts going from northern to southern Africa count as much as a "distortion" as the ones separating Indonesia and South America.
Ultimately, "objective" best depends on the metric you choose and that is a subjective decision.