This seems to be the Luddite argument that people have been making for a long time about new technology, but new jobs appear to replace those lost, and so the claimed criticism never happens. And are you seriously saying that it would be better if we didn't strive to do that? It'd be better if we didn't have robots and computers and factories replacing all that human labour?
Could you please list all these "new jobs" that can sustain over 7,400,000,000 ( 7.4 billion ) humans? ( roughly 5,000,000,000 [ 5 billion ] workers )
Last year 131,000,000 ( 131 million ) new humans were made.
It seems like thousands of "old jobs" are being replaced with a handful of new jobs ... AKA "diminishing labor returns" .
I don't need to list every single job, I simply note that they already exist in today's world, jobs weren't swept away by machines from the Industrial revolution.
In the meantime, cost-of-living is going through the roof. Apparently "better living conditions" is being homeless ?No one is claiming that there aren't issues of poverty or inequality today.
Are you seriously suggesting that life was better for most people in developed countries before say the 20th Century? If not, why is your argument today different from the Luddites'?
Another problem with your argument is that striving for scientific and technological advancement, or greater efficiency, is hardly specific to capitalism - though if it excels at promoting it, that would be a good point imo.