arguments against parfit's views questioned

Even though they are view that Parfit is opposing, I don’t think that what is considered good quality of life holds the validity that its argument does, and the idea that we can’t see out of our personal identity. When using the examples of power plants and resource uses, it is said that if the people choose the risky option, or depletion, then people living in the future suffering the consequences won’t be suffering anymore because their identity is in that time frame and they won’t have any other experiences to compare their environment to. The people who are living with these consequences can know that hundreds of years earlier, there was a different option that would have lead to a different outcome, so they know that their reality could have been better.
The very idea of the type of well being in consideration can’t fully constitute all of well being. Again, in the power plant and conservation/depletion examples, it seems quality of life is determined by health, and material possessions. These things factor into well being, but aren’t the most important aspect. The mental state. Wealth doesn’t determine how truly happy a person is. There have been studies that show material possession and wealth don’t equate to more happiness. Even more importantly, as we consume more and gain more, overall happiness hasn’t risen in people. In the case of depletion, we can’t say that their well being is better, because in some other poor places in the world with less consumption, they can have less but be just as happy.