You do realize that you are quoting data that is outdated by far right?  The updated Merit Source data can be found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=sources
That’s the problem that I earlier stated on this same thread. Someone bumped it up, conversation gets going on the thread, but essential information on the thread is stale and thus misleading.

I’ll use a similar argument that I’ve used before. In a corporation that makes shoes, only a reduced set of the workers have the technical capabilities to design them, the rest all know how to wear the shoes, but perform other tasks that, brought together, keep the company on its feet (no pun intended). Publicist, salesmen, finance and administration, logistics, etc. all put their part into making the shoe brand become what it is.  The analogy goes to say that, although Bitcoin is the core conceptual driver of this forum, we can create meritable posts in many areas.

Merit in the Bitcoin section is indeed not as widespread as one would think, but the general Bitcoin Discussion thread is way too spammed currently, and finding good posts there is not easy.  On the other hand, the more technical subsections are not comprehensible by many, and therefore bare less attention by meriters probably than they deserve. Fortunately, there are now more Merit Sources around to try to reach out, but paradoxically (and logically), the more technical the topic the less people that are going to understand it or even be really interested in it. Going back to the shoe corporation example, the designers are essential there, but not many people really understand their language…

There are currently 2.381.734 accounts (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=stats), although in terms of active accounts (logged in within the last three months) there are something like 368.297 according to @vod’s BPIP (see https://bpip.org). That means that chances are better than one would have thought initially.