I don't see a point in striving for a society where most of the population is only meeting tier 1 needs. That's a human chicken farm, not a civilization.
The question is not whether some individuals strive for it, but whether the entire ecosystem moves toward it. Different contexts, different mechanisms.
In 100 years you'll be dead as Caesar's ghost regardless of what car you drive or how braggable your social media presence makes your life appear. Pointless bling is pointless, regardless of how it's framed. Edit: apparently that poked someone in the worldview. Nifty.
Unnecessary suffering is also pointless. Existence of life in a cold indifferent universe is pointless. The whole point is that it's all pointless, might as well make it worthwhile, whatever version of it one prefers.
Historically, whoever is better armed and guillotines or similar. It's nice to dream about our species collectively pulling it's head out of it's own ass but there's really no precedent for it.
The guilty flee where none pursueth. Are we now going to argue that aligning society to service (primarily) hyperconcentration of wealth at the cost of every ecosystem on the planet while burning through non-renewable resources isn't sociopathic? Bear in mind we live in a closed system. Oh what, you thought I was implying having your worldview handed to you by someone else's marketing team is sociopathic? Nah, aim higher up the food chain.
I will vote for the party that has a believable plan.
So far, at least in Hamburg, Germany, I feel it is mostly a fight amongst many for the same, very scarce resources.
It seems like it's a different picture in the states. "The many" are in no way near able to afford/accomplish owning a house on a lake. This is reserved for the elite.
I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy downing half a fifth of tequila and setting fire to my neighbor's rose bushes but I don't consider that part of my definition of a functional society.