After reading Factfullness by Hans Rosling and others I would like to claim the following:
It is humanitarian to to spend one's life increasing world efficiency.
I would like to verify / discuss this claim. Apologies if I’m just rephrasing other work or my logic is flawed. I’m am aware of Kant’s humanitarian rule which loosely translates to “Each person must never be treated only as a means to some other end, but must also be treated as an end themselves.” For myself I would prefer a more specific goal, since it is hard to measure each action against Kant’s rule. For brevity I will from now on use good to denote humanitarian and bad to denote the opposite. My rationale for the claim is as follows.
Part 1: Humans in general are good. My interpretation of Factfullness is that humans in general are good. You will always have people with bad behavior, but in general the world seems to become a better (more humanitarian) place every year. This is, for example, explained using the statistics for child mortality, life expectancy and percentage girls finishing public school. All these have significantly improved.
Part 2: Increased efficiency is good. One argument I came up with for this is looking at the extreme. Suppose we got an extremely efficient world. One person is able to do all the work in one day which used to be done by the entire world in one day. Then another person, for example, can in his one day make huge progress on reducing global warming while the third works on solving world hunger. This assumes that these persons would indeed spend their time on these good things. By point 1 I would argue that this is indeed the case. As extra argument we can add that humans nowadays also have a lot of power. All too often people are in situations where they could kill another human easily, but still they happily do not.
So, increasing efficiency appears to be good by part 2. Can we now conclude that the claim holds? Feedback would be greatly appreciated.