Look what made us happy at the start of the 21st century, 1-3 MP captures and with great craft the wonderful prints we made! Then the pixel race was on... Even the original Kodak PhotoCD in the early 1990s was blazing at 6mp for regular scans and 24mp to Professional!
For me today, especially since much is web-posted, an iPhone would do if I was any good with it.
Though I have higher-res cameras and love the image quality, much of my commercial work is still on lower res cameras, lower light with magical 12mp chips, now a decade old and travel work on m43 and 16mp which also double for my motion work.
Much of my large-print work, 20x30 to 30x40 printing in the last ten years has been created from image captures under 12 mp, some from 6 mp and lower and with cameras that would be shunned by most today. But in all reality, mot mp would not have mattered in the overall scheme, it's the vision, technique, craft and came together to make the image, more pixels would have only added marginally.
During this time, I've even worked some with my iPhone and for some subjects, it's been the proper choice for the image and the camera in my device is at least five years behind the curve.
Sometimes in my own work, even before digital, I can see that having the highest-res or latest lens would not have made much difference and sometime newer/better amounts to not much more than splitting hairs to get a little-better iq, especially today.
IMO, 95% of most viewers most likely could not tell the difference between a large print, say 30x40 printed from 12 mp vs. 24mp vs. double that. In social media or on the web, it almost doesn't matter since most images are going to be mangled anyway both before uploading and by the server anyway let alone how it will be viewed on the other end anyway, from the cheapest hand-held to the most common bundled and uncalibrated display anyway.
That said, rather than worry about more pixels in our cameras, worry more about honing and caressing the pixels we have until we ware them out!