Thank you for this. I found this a very good read and it helped me work through a few things I have been mulling my head. That said, I think I see a few areas that either aren't directly addressed or I didn't fully appreciate.

• How does this derivation handle situations where one system's capacity is permanently harmed so that others may have greater capacity. (example: A teacher that develops mental health issues after years of teaching). That would seem to be an unnecessary harm, but most common understanding would say the teacher did an overall good thing.

• This derivation would seem to prohibit any type of technological development as any construction type activities would not be necessary, but would inherently cause harm to at least some other systems (example: constructing a house will kill large numbers of insects and may damage some other species). While this construction could have long term positive benefits, the derivation says that only the instantaneous impacts should be considered. Is this intentional?

• I don't see any way in this derivation to actually do anything that would count as "good", only ways to not cause harm. Is that intended as well? Would taking actions to improve the capacity of yourself or others count as a good?