Depending on how one defines the "objective function" for progress more or less anything we want (or don't want) can be rationalised One perspective might be d

Depending on how one defines the "objective function" for progress more or less anything we want (or don't want) can be rationalised One perspective might be defining progress to be maximising the expected long-term survival (that is, non-extinction) of our species. This framework could justify any amount of suffering of individuals - what's good for the population isn't necessarily good for individuals, and vice versa. https://nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html https://nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html If happiness is subjective, perhaps some individuals are naturally capable of greater levels of happiness than others -- https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-04-03 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-04-03 Another perspective might be to get a bit carried away with using accounting heuristics when trading off happiness now versus happiness in the future, and decide that a 4% annual happiness discount rate makes sense, so 100 units of happiness now is better than 2 units of happiness in 100 years time (this kind of valuation might be consistent with the human endeavour's response to the threat of climate change).