The other option, which is what I generally feel, is a sense of purpose that we need to make sure we shepherd the human race in the small way we can to the eventual goal of something like this. That is, it's engendered a bit more thoughtfulness about not just what policies yield the best current outcome, but what if we took a path of advancement slightly less optimized for current ease and happiness and more for future gain?

We are of course very far from being able to correctly plan and carry out anything like that if we really wanted to, given that our current advancement is almost entirely directed by market forces and psychology that we are just beginning to understand, but it's an interesting thought experiment.

Can you ethically deny X people currently for the betterment of n*x people in the future, assuming population growth and expansion? If so, what's to keep us from enslaving all the current people in pursuit of ultimate happiness of some theoretical future? If not, why are we saving anything for future generations rather than consuming it all for our benefit right now? The extremes are of course easy to answer, but the variables that go into it make it interesting to think about.