The Great Cuisines of the world have all been peasant food. What the commoner prepared and ate. Sure, fancy court food shows up in feasts and such but is really an oddity more than a baseline of the cuisine.
Chinese, Indian, Greek, Italian, French, Mexican and all is about the eating of the commoner. Michelin stars are quite far removed from this imho. They're more elite performances and innovations. Think the Olympic Games. But does that mean the corner playground games are unimportant. No, that's where most of play really happens, where the majority enjoyment of the sport occurs. And so it is with food.
In industrialized nations, food has drifted towards increased convenience, but that is not a great cuisine. The great food of the wold continues to be cooked though it does evolve and pick up conveniences.
I've never eaten at a Michelin starred restaurant and probably never will. I don't tend to travel to places where Michelin reviewers hang out to award stars. Does this mean that I'm not eating quality food. Not in the least. Similarly, though the Olympics happened all around me and I've skied Olympic terrain at a much more sedate pace, I'll not compete in the Olympics, nor attend the event. But it doesn't decrease my skiing quality experience.
I'll enjoy reading and seeing what these performing chefs create, but it's not particularly reflective of what great cuisine is which is tied to the history and culture of the people, not the individual performances. Even though at the individual level, it is often great food.
Michelin stars are their own thing, their own competition. If that's what drives you great. But it's hardly reflective of much of the great food eaten every day around the world by many people, whether in a restaurant or at home.