If you give your surplus food to an area that supports 5,000 starving people, then you have only ensured that 6,000 of them will be around in the next ge

If you give your surplus food to an area that supports 5,000 starving people, then you have only ensured that 6,000 of them will be around in the next generation to starve even more severely. Not sure how well that applies to human societies. Poorer countries tend to have a higher population growth because poor people have children so that they can put them into labor. In developed societies, the general quality of life is increasing while population growth is decreasing, something that contradicts your assumption. so in a world where needs are fulfilled regardless of whether you do anything, I fear people will have little incentive or inspiration to create That's a typical libertarian argument that borders on sadism (is producing great creations more important than living comfortably?). It can also be easily dismissed: Money is not the only incentive for producing art or science. In fact it's far from the most important incentive. Are you saying that important scientists or artists have produced their works merely in order to fulfill material needs? I wish I didn't have to care about making enough money to survive so that I would have time to pursue my lofty research ideas.