Most economists understand this, in the way that they define "utility" as the object of man's desire. Most economists translate this to mean happiness; sloppy ones, politicians and gossip columnists translate it as income or consumption .
Double the income (or consumption) clearly does not mean double the happiness, so you can see the fallacy there (past posts on the growth cult and consumption vs family).
On the other hand, Smith was surely aware of these problems, and I reckon that his notion of "wealth" had a lot to do with the good life.
With those thoughts on the table, I turn to the next podcast, where Russ talks with Kevin Kelly about "What technology wants." This talk was interesting in many ways, but they spent some time discussing the use and abuse of technology in our society.
That podcast, along with humans innovate and "things are great" podcast with Matt Ridley , made me put on my resource and environment cap.
First, we have to remember that a lot of our prosperity came from mining non-renewable resources and dumping waste into the non-renewable environment . The Industrial Revolution was built on technology, yes, but it was also built on coal. We live well now because we are borrowing and consuming energy from the future. That's the kind of thing that's unsustainable if either we run out of energy supplies and other resources to mine (something I am not worried about, because prices will help us replace peak oil) or we run out of environment where we dump the pollution from our lifestyle and population.
I am definitely worried about the environment, and for a very simple reason: it's a commons which we all benefit from and pollute and for which we cannot attach a price to ensure that it's carefully managed .
Now here are the important points that many people (including Roberts and his guests)
- The readers of this blog -- most of them in the developed world -- are going to have to pay more for sushi, lose the reefs for diving tours and spend more on disaster insurance. For us, adopting to damage to the environment and climate change is going to be annoying, but ultimately cost us less than 10 percent of our income.
- The people who are going to suffer are the people who live in the developing world. They are going to lose their food supply, their homes and perhaps their loved ones, as floods, mudslides, crop failures and disease take a massive toll on their already fragile lives. For example, the countries identified as having the fastest growing weather disaster impact until 2030 are: Venezuela, Myanmar, Honduras, Micronesia, Haiti, Bangladesh, Grenada, Somalia, Samoa and Nicaragua.
Bottom Line: Consumption is nice, but it may not make us happy. Even worse, it may have adverse impacts on our environment and our neighbors -- impacts that will come back to bite us in the ass. Plan accordingly.
 The discussion veered onto Bernard de Mandeville, a 17th century free thinker who favored "greed is good," or (more diplomatically) the benefits that individual choice and demand delivers to those who supply. His Fable of the Bees is entertaining.
 I'll review his book The Origins of Virtue soon.
 Background posts (one two) comparing environmental goods to natural resources.
 I wrote about this a few years ago: Conversation with My Dad, part one and part two.