> The first point is true, but most people do not choose it.

Because they lack wisdom and human beings en masse operate on instinct, not wisdom.

> Almost the entire world is financially better off than it was in the past. Lots of third world economies are visibly richer than they were a few decades ago. Whose suffering are they benefitting from?

The classic reply of the economist. It's because the industrial world measures better off with variables like "life expectancy" and "money".

But a longer life does not a better life make, nor does money always equate to better off.

For example: if I could live next to a beautiful national park and walk there every day, that would be more valuable to me than a million dollars but living in a huge city. How does the prevailing evaluative mechanism account for that?

>The classic reply of the economist. It's because the industrial world measures better off with variables like "life expectancy" and "money".

I'd take arguments with objective metrics over handwavy arguments involving vibes, because with the latter you can make whatever argument you want with them and it's impossible to refute.

>For example: if I could live next to a beautiful national park and walk there every day, that would be more valuable to me than a million dollars but living in a huge city. How does the prevailing evaluative mechanism account for that?

You can ask for how much people are willing to pay for access to such a scenery and put a dollar value on it, or try to infer it based on housing price patterns (eg. house next to national park vs equally rural house next to corn fields).

> I'd take arguments with objective metrics over handwavy arguments involving vibes, because with the latter you can make whatever argument you want with them and it's impossible to refute.

You can define other concrete metrics. Distance to wild nature for example. That's concrete.

I did specify financially.

Also, there has been a visible improvement in living standards in third world countries. More money does not mean people have a better life in a rich country because there are diminishing returns on having more money. In a country where most people are a lot poorer and desperately need more money, more money does mean better off.

I am pretty sure people who can afford a proper house instead of a slum stack, or have a proper toilet, etc. are better off. As I said, there are visible improvements in the lives of the very poor.

"For example: if I could live next to a beautiful national park and walk there every day, that would be more valuable to me than a million dollars but living in a huge city."

That is your preference. Many people prefer living in a big city.

Also, what about how good your conditions of life are next to the beautiful national park? A nice house in a big city with good food and leisure time vs a shack in the beautiful place, hard work to grow a barely adequate amount of food?

The prevailing evaluative mechanism would note that you could take that million dollars, invest it in a 4% annuity, and move next to the national park of your choice with $40,000 in your pocket every year for the rest of your life. Indeed, there's a whole movement called FIRE of people who do things like this.

But there's also people like me, who say that sounds great but don't really mean it, because it's cringe to admit that you care about money.

The last 40 years have seen enormous economic growth outside the G7 to the point that North America and Western Europe no longer dominate the global economy.

Vice president Vance marrying a woman from India was a look into the future. The rich elite know what's happening.

Rishi Sunak's wife is a better example: the one in the couple with the money is the Indian heiress not the British former hedge fund manager!