 Defining a threshold of well-being according to which both currently and future living people are able to reach a sufficientarian threshold arguably avoids the implausible implications of the egalitarian and prioritarian alternatives when we understand the latter to define thresholds of harm (see  §4.1  and  §4.2):  First, avoiding or reducing differences must not lead to a state of affairs in which people are worse off than they ought to be. Secondly, claims against currently living people are unreasonable if in fulfilling them the currently living people will bring about minimal or even trivial improvements of the well-being of future people but suffer losses themselves, causing them to fall below a plausible threshold level of well-being. Third, the number of people brought into existence ought to be compatible with all people having sufficiently good lives or lives worth living (see Meyer 1997: 139–140).