&gt;and if we dig deeper, it&#x27;s not that you want to live with your fiancee, it&#x27;s that you want human companionship and sex,<p>No, actually.  I want to live with my fiancee.  I could perhaps come up with a supergoal for that if I tried, but it would still involve this specific fiancee.<p>Some things are terminally good, others instrumentally.  The chain of reduction stops at things I want for their own sake, long before it hits &quot;Maslow&quot;.<p>&gt;Among the choices available to you, you are getting what you want.<p>This is vacuous.  Firstly, there might be some superior option nobody told me about, or that I didn&#x27;t think of.  Secondly, defining &quot;what I want&quot; as &quot;what was available to me&quot; amounts to rationalizing economics backwards into psychology while ignoring the available empirical evidence.  You don&#x27;t get to tell me what I want based on what I did, because there are in fact many, many filters between what I want and what I do.<p>&gt;but I would suggest that the blame for that lies with the fact that we do not live in a post-scarcity society rather than on the resource distribution model we use.<p>These are effectively the same statement.  We have more than enough resources to put everyone in the realm of diminishing returns to additional economic resources -- we just have capitalism instead of happiness.<p>(This is another reason why revealed preferences theories are crap.)