Free market capitalism makes people more materialistic

With respect to the population expansion on our hypothetical island, I believe that there is no way to prove that the parents had off spring for non-exchangeable reasons. These parents may very well be lazy and thought that by adding one person to the family business of farming they could do less work. There is no evidence that in this lawless island they are raising the child for love, friendship or any other non-exchangeable goods. They very well may thought that, without the benefit of foresight, if they could produce more, they could sell more and then they could buy more widgets. Perhaps by having more widgets they are able to satisfy their desire for the "good life" by pursuing non-exchangeable goods such as friendship. However, it would be impossible to pursue these pleasurable non-exchangeable goods without first satisfying the need for exchangeable goods, such as food and shelter. This therefore, makes materialistic goods more categorically necessary and important in the pursuit of the good life. You cannot put the top piece on a pyramid without first building the necessary base. In this analogy, materialistic goods such as food, shelter, clothing and medical attention are the base and the stabilizing unit of the pyramid while knowledge and friendship are the top piece. With respect to the fact that the island now requires 120 utils, whatever the reason might be, I argue that 120 Utils will need to be picked up by the other residents of the island in addition to the parents. Now that demand for exchangeable goods is 120 utils instead of 100 there is pressure on all of the island occupants. if the other islanders do not keep up with that demand by supplying more utils of food, shelter and medical service people are going to die. this would create a hostile environment where people would be unwilling to trade with one another. Any hindrance to trade would cause an "uncapitalistic" scenario where property rights are not exchanged, thereby not fitting the definition of free market capitalism as outlined previously. Therefore, in order to remain a free market capitalist society the suppliers must keep up with the demand or risk not being supplied with the things that they need to survive. "But as we move from scenario one to scenario two on the hypothetical island, where the foundations of a money-economy are laid down, the diminishing marginal returns of exchangeable goods step in and the demand goes from this kind of good to the non-exchangeable kind." As you conceded, in scenario one (where the occupants are freshly stranded on the island) exchangeable goods would be of a higher categorical value, I will address your perception of scenario two. I believe that in the above-quoted statement, which I took to represent your law of diminishing returns argument as a whole, you are getting away from the fundamental issue in this debate, whether exchangeable goods are of a categorically higher value than non-exchangeable goods. The above-quote appears to suggest that because the demand increases in non-exchangeable they are of a categorically higher value. I simply disagree with that. Just because demand has shifted there does not mean it is of a higher value. Only when the needs of exchangeable goods are met can one even attempt to satisfy this desire for non-exchangeable goods. Therefore if one can only pursue non-exchangeable goods when exchangeable goods are met then exchangeable goods are of a higher categorical value, which was my goal to prove in this debate. I further disagree with your conclusion that, "in sum, there is no force inherent to the free market making us value material goods more than the alternative." I think that there absolutely is. Free Market Capitalist society as defined in the opening is the only economy that would force people to value material goods. In other forms of economy, the "government" or some other authority would provide a safety net or force people to trade with one another or any number of other policies that does not allow someone to go hungry and die. In this Free Market Capitalism, where no one is going to give you food, shelter or clothes unless you earn it, whether through trade or production, the value of material goods must be categorically higher or survival is doubtful. Therefore, if Capitalism does not promote a more materialistic society then it is an exercise in suicide.