> a) keep the process of creating new things well exercised. "We can't build that anymore. We don't know how." A factory that builds things that last too long eventually goes out of business.

In an properly-managed world (not ours), we'd figure out how many factories we need to keep the process knowledge fresh and safe, then have those factories build items that last exactly as long to keep their production steady. Then other factories could make other things. End result: more and better stuff.

Like instead of 1000 washing machine factories that make washing machines that last 5 years each, have 100 that make washing machines that last 50 years.

Instead we get hyper-fast planned obsolescence, pushing the frontier of unreliability and waste creation, so number can go up this quarter.

I never considered the compound interest angle. This helps me reason about my life; thanks!

most of human evolutionary history was hunter gatherer and survival was subsistence level, and your arguments don't work.

birthing was necessary at least to maintain population, but preferably to expand it. it's only now that we consider "too many" a possibility, and we didn't evolve for this moment.

our history does not show potentially perpetually compounding gains that our children would evolutionarily need a genetic defense against, we already had looting, stealing, and killing.

I think the answer, if there is a programmed obsolesence, is because the genetic admixing of the next generation through sexual reproduction is so useful and important.