I agree 100% that 24mp is more than enough for the vast majority of professionals who earn a living at photography.
This is a bit off (thread) topic, However:
For those saying 10-12, or even 20mp is enough for printing large prints... Please, pause, take a breath and ask yourself; Have I every printed an image by doing more than pressing the print button (or sending a file to a printer)?
I'm not saying you need uberpixels, but they most certainly can be a limiting factor.
For those who map colour profiles between screens and paper types, understand paper types, labour over sharpening (not a slider bar in Lightroom, by the way), know the difference between dpi and ppi, make and use swatches, set black and white points, and understand the value of ink, it's not hard to tell when a print lacks in megapixels.
For those saying you stand XX feet back from a large print anyway, so you'll never see the difference... No, not in a lot of cases. If you see a beautifully detailed image, with the file quality (megapixels are part of this), processing skill, and printing knowledge all coming together in one large print, hung on a properly lit wall, you'll most certainly see people who walk right up close and lose themselves completely in the details. This is one of the differences between motion and still images. I've never seen anyone walk right up to an 8K television screen, but I've most certainly seen people walk up to the equivalent resolution photographic print.