Let 10 represent the greatest possible happiness for a human to experience, and let 0 represent the minimal amount of happiness for a human life to be worth living, with a smooth gradation along the intervening numbers.
Now, suppose that there are three futures we could guarantee for the year 2200:
Future A — there are a billion people, all living lives at 7.
Future B — there are two billion people, all living lives at 6.
Future C — there are two billion people, with one billion living lives at 7 and the second billion living lives at 3.5.
Problem: as I will argue if need be in the discussion that follows (should there be one!), A is all-things-considered better than B; B is all-things-considered better than C; and C is all-things-considered better than A.
How can this paradox be resolved?
*Note: I have deliberately excluded external matters like how we can get to these futures and what will happen in the aftermath of these futures. I did that deliberately in order to make clear that, even without those externalities, there seems to be a paradox in these outcomes _themselves_. So no digressions away from the comparisons between the three outcomes in themselves, please! Not fair, and not helpful! Thanks.