[labrador]

I am not an economist so I don't know how to respond to your statement. I'm sure you're correct that it's absolutely a bad thing in some sense for some people.

How the Standard of Living Is Measured: The generally accepted measure of the standard of living is GDP per capita. This is a nation's gross domestic product divided by its population. The GDP is the total output of goods and services produced in a year by everyone within the country's borders.

https://www.thebalance.com/standard-of-living-3305758

If living consuming less and living simply is "absolutely a bad thing" then consuming more and living more complicated lives is absolutely a good thing. But good for who? It's not good for the planet and it's not good according to many spiritual and religious traditions because it's driven by always wanting more, which implies a certain amount of dissatisfaction with what you already have.

Rabbi Hyman Schachtel (1954) proposed that "happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have"

Is happiness having what you want, wanting what you have, or both?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18399890/

[grnmamba]

> If living consuming less and living simply is "absolutely a bad thing" then consuming more and living more complicated lives is absolutely a good thing.

I did not say that.

I did however imply that being unable to afford heating (or even being unable to receive heating at all) during winter is absolutely a bad thing, and that's the path Europe is headed towards. Having a high GDP per capita does not mean high environmental damage at all; in fact the opposite is true. Compare how emerging countries generate electricity with how developed countries generate electricity.

http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/3.7

[nradov]

What is the optimal level of consumption? Which specific things should we give up? What if I don't share your same spiritual and religious traditions?