> What I really mean by this is, IMO, it would be a better result overall if the world were less productive, but the minimum living standard were higher. Maybe

> What I really mean by this is, IMO, it would be a better result overall if the world were less productive, but the minimum living standard were higher. Maybe, but I think it's a bit of a non-sequitor. There's no either/or choice there. Consistently, a place producing a lot equates with a high quality of life. The only places that do better for quality of life are relatively small, extremely homogeneous societies (Okinawa, Switzerland, etc). As a general, large scale strategy, produce more is pretty good. Attempts to produce less and streamline it to where the governor thinks it should go have all ended poorly thus far. > Sure, but the incremental benefits of these items to people tends to get smaller. These could be sacrificed at least until everyone reaches a flatter part of this curve. This like medicines, sanitation, are not exactly in the same class as, say, an iPod. Definitely - and this is a choice we already get to make as individuals. You can choose how much you want to consume, invest, and give charitably. It's an individual ethical judgment, and one we must all make and live with. > In practice a decent plan, and perhaps even the only practical one given human nature and our political systems. But still not a goal in itself. Well, I think "produce as much good stuff as we can" is a good goal in itself, but improving the baseline of the whole world is good too. Actually, I think they're complimentary goals, and not really in opposition with each other at all. Working to build as much good stuff as possible in the world makes it easier to make more good stuff cheaper - I don't think there's any natural antagonism or choice between producing more and improving the baseline for the rest of the world. In fact, I'm pretty sure they're complimentary goals.