Acharya Prashant responds to a question about the economic principle that "more is better" and its implications for teaching pedagogy. He begins by questioning, "More is better for whom?" He explains that not everything is better when there is more of it, using the simple example of food. This leads to a critique of how economics defines welfare. He urges a re-examination of what welfare truly comprises, suggesting that consumption is not a reliable indicator. He points out that while humanity once faced scarcity, today, the problems of overconsumption, such as obesity, hypertension, and diabetes, are far more prevalent. The number of people dying from lifestyle-related disorders is significantly higher than those dying from malnutrition. Acharya Prashant extends this critique to the vague and often destructive concept of "development." He notes that in the name of development, trees are massacred, and natural habitats are destroyed, leading to severe heatwaves. He questions what is meant by development and growth, highlighting that these terms are often used without a clear, conscious understanding. He points out the absurdity of political discourse centered on GDP growth rates, which has seeped into the cultural vocabulary, without anyone questioning what these numbers truly represent for human well-being. This entire approach, he argues, is a product of deep ignorance about the Self. Addressing the topic of population policies, Acharya Prashant questions the fundamental premise of a country needing people. He asserts that nations often weaponize their populations to assert hegemony over others, a manifestation of the collective ego. He compares this to a patriarch demanding more sons to manage his assets and legacy. He criticizes the notion of a "population collapse" as being based on a flawed and arbitrary baseline, such as the current 8 billion people, and calls it a function of a low IQ. He concludes that humans are fundamentally consciousness, not mere units to be used by a country or a factory. The prevailing mindset, whether on the street or in parliament, is foolish to the core because it is based on intellect without wisdom, stemming from a lack of self-knowledge.