Pareto improvements are theoretical concept. neonological argues here, that those are impossible in reality. I think this is pretty hard to argue one or other way, because side effects of our activities aren't always obvious. Things like tumbleweed in northern america or any accidentally imported plant/animal is good example about costs, that arrive later and for other people.
Though I think there is possible to construct some clear Pareto improvement cases, like early improvements of internal combustion engine, where I don't see possibility of negative effects, only additional power out of same amount of fuel.
From certain perspectives increasing available energy or increasing energy efficiency is a net positive. But the modus operandi of humans is to pay for goods because of limited supply.
The game is basically zero sum but occasionally you roll some dice and if it lands on a 6 you can increase the total sum. However the game in between the dice rolls is zero sum. To frame it in a real world example: you still pay for energy as if it was limited even though nuclear fusion has the potential to make it unlimited.
Growth in terms of resource discovery and better technology is not zero sum. But exchanges and transactions in terms of current available resources and technology is zero sum.
That should help setup a dichotomy and clarify things.
