I think now you’re talking more about desired qualities of a system than teachers, which might also be interesting in the other cases. In some technical sense probably it applies to the farmer, but human use of food is so constant and cyclical, it feels misapplied there. The doctor may be similar to a farmer in that regard, making money off the nature of humans to occasionally be ill.
However, the lawyer is most like what you are describing above, fully dependent on the system of conflicts for its sustenance, as the Dao De Jing states, “The more laws and ordinances are promulgated, The more thieves and robbers there are.” Hence, perhaps, the general easy animosity towards lawyers.
I wonder if there is a social proportion to a school system having more of factor X and it getting more social animosity. I suspect it would be the same factor that creates droves of disaffected, burnt-out teachers. Of course, there is also the illness-industrial-complex system, which most people react badly to, compared to doctors themselves. What is that factor though?
It is also possible that the scope of evangelists would need to be sufficient to convince people who matter. Some people who can make decisions might listen to someone with an Exotic-Sounding PhD from Berkeley. Others who matter might not. Just as an example, I think some politicians and wealthy powerful types may be more willing to listen to engineers than mathematicians or pure theoreticians. And a normal engineer might also carry more clout than someone from such exotica as silicon valley communities where people are into open relationships and go to burning man.
By analogy, some of this is kind of along the lines where sometimes people trust a nurse practitioner more deeply than a doctor. There may be good/bad reasoning behind that, but for some people it just is what it is. The rest probably comes down to tribal shibboleths. But these get important when you want people to hear you. Remember how little it mattered to many people when “1500 people with PhDs all signed this thing saying climate change is real.” I bet one blue-collar Civil Engineer with the education in hydrology to know exactly what he was talking about, would have been more convincing than 1500 PhDs to that whole tribe. And there could have been (still could be) a campaign to let that voice be heard rather than dismissing vast swaths of people, including those categories you mentioned above, who would have listened to him.
Politicians in general are typically uninformed about and have difficulty with highly-technical matters, even so far as what we all might consider “basic” frequentist statistics, let alone holes in those models. Let alone “The model has exfiltrated its own network weights!”
So in some sense, if you want the full weight of government involved, we need people who speak common languages with each of those different types you mentioned: Politicians, Military, Wealthy powerful, the public.
To that end, maybe we should be assembling like minded and smart people to talk about this using different languages and different expertise. Yes, the people from the think tanks. But also, people who others can really hear. Maybe we should develop a structure and culture here on LW to evangelize a *broader pool of types of evangelists.*