The purpose of economic progress is for future generations to live better, easier lives. This means your grandchildren's baseline lifestyle will seem indulgent or "spoiled" by today's standards. This isn't a moral failure; it's the definition of successful progress over time.
Our brains are wired to measure success relative to our peers, not in absolute terms. Even if future generations live with technology and medicine we can't fathom, they won't feel happier because their baseline expectations will have shifted, and they'll still be comparing themselves to others.
Existential angst is a luxury problem. A century ago, life's purpose was clear: survive. The comfort and freedom of modern life have removed physical struggles but introduced complex psychological ones, like finding meaning and identity, which are a hidden cost of progress.
The ultimate personal financial goal should be contentment. Paradoxically, economic and technological progress is driven by influential people who are never content and constantly strive for more. This creates a necessary tension between individual wellbeing and societal advancement.
Three economists won a Nobel Prize for framing 'creative destruction' as the engine of modern progress. Unlike pre-industrial eras with stagnant growth, the last 200 years have seen constant improvement because society allows new technologies like cars to destroy old industries like horse transport.
Political demands that new technology must benefit the specific workers it replaces are fundamentally flawed. This logic ignores progress. The goal shouldn't be to preserve obsolete jobs but to ensure technology benefits civilization as a whole by creating abundance while managing the difficult labor transition.
An elderly investor rejected a conservative portfolio by pointing to his grandchildren and stating, 'My time horizon is infinite.' This philosophy shifts focus from an individual's lifespan to multi-generational wealth, justifying a more growth-oriented, long-term strategy.
Happiness is the gap between reality and expectations. Even in a world of immense progress in wealth and health, people may not feel better off if their expectations rise faster. Appreciating nothing despite objective improvements is, as Morgan Housel describes, a tragic way to live.
This analogy frames a realistic, cautiously optimistic post-AGI world. Humans may lose their central role in driving progress but will enjoy immense wealth and high living standards, finding meaning outside of economic production, similar to younger children of European nobility who didn't inherit titles.
Unprecedented global prosperity creates a vacuum of real adversity, leading people to invent anxieties and fixate on trivial problems. Lacking the perspective from genuine struggle, many complain about first-world issues while ignoring their immense privilege, leading to a state where things are 'so good, it's bad.'
Sam Harris challenges the fear that Universal Basic Income (UBI) would create mass purposelessness by pointing to historical aristocracies. He argues this large population, who didn't have to work, still managed to find meaning and live recognizably happy lives, serving as a real-world test case for a leisured society.