I think the deeper question that is being ignored is that of how we decide what is valuable: how we measure value. The market approach that is being espoused, and favoured by some here, reduces everything to a dollar amount. This is convenient, especially from an algorithmic standpoint, since then your algorithms can process any kind of input.

But this is a pretty big assumption. I'm not saying that you can't put a price on anything--you can. But that doesn't mean that the price is accurate, in terms of the value acquired, which is what some other people are trying to point out. The market assumes you can rationally determine the real value of things, in money terms, and compare all things equivalently. But the future utility of something, let alone knowledge, is impossible to measure with any hope of accuracy.

If everybody measures everything with money based on some expectation of value--itself measured in terms of the return on investment of existing money/time--and most people are wrong, then it might have very bad long-term consequences for individuals and society.

Lots of things are lost when we replace one way of doing things with another way, and usually the dollar value of those things is never considered, but is externalized and conveniently forgotten. Same is true for the way we treat the value of natural resources (air, water, wildlife, minerals) as zero until exploited. It's a pragmatic necessity, enforced by the limits of our measuring tools, but that doesn't mean that nothing is lost.

So, when you say "standards of living have increased", what measures are being used? Past the essentials (food/water/housing/clothing/security), we get into very grey areas. Knowledge and ways of life are changing, and maybe the loss is more costly than people are willing to admit in the rush for material prosperity.