I’m not sure that’s what that meant. The argument was more akin (and were really diverging from the topic) to Tyler Cowens philanthropy concept. Take two countries, country A and country B, one grows gdp at 2% per annum, the other at 3%. Tyler’s argument is that in, say 200 years, the difference due to compounding is greater than USA and (some poorer country) in 2020. Therefore if we can continue growing GDP it’s generally good for people as living standards are much higher. But I’m not a philosopher, and tbh Tyler is an economist.