I think we would develop these in due time, just slower. One could also argue that some of these (textile industry, cloud computing) are bad.

Actually, I am not against some inequality, as long as there is some kind of limit to it.

> One could also argue that some of these (textile industry, cloud computing) are bad.

You could, but the textile industry freed women from endlessly spinning thread and making cloth. Pretty much nobody does that anymore. I don't want to spend my life making cloth the pre-industrial way. Do you?

In colonial America, archaeological bone evidence shows the colonists worked like dogs and died young. Not very romantic.

So should we have more inequality to have more of all those things, then?

Someone is always going to be stronger, faster, taller, younger, better looking, have more things, etc., than you do. If you use the envy to improve your life, then it's good. If you use the envy to tear down others to your level, that's not so good.

I am not sure how your point implies that the current level of inequality is either optimal or too low

You are implying that there should be "optimal" levels in wealth inequality, but do we really have relative limits/levels for any other unequality aspect (strength, speed, height, age, or beauty) to say there should be one on wealth?

I didn't imply it was optimal or not. My point was that's the wrong question.