We are discussing the relative value of two different things: the stuff people do intentionally (and the byproducts thereof), and everything else.

In the case of the negative scenarios I outlined this is hopefully clear: wars aren't sped up 1-for-1, so there will be fewer wars between here and any relevant technological milestones. And similarly for other stressors, etc.

Regarding education: Suppose you made everything 1% more efficient. The amount of education a person gets over their life is 1% higher (because you didn't increase the pace of aging / turnover between people, which is the thing people were struggling against, and so people do better at getting what they want).

Other cases seem to be similar: some things are a wash, but more things get better than worse, because systematically people are pushing on the positive direction.

Procedurally, we're not likely to resolve that particular persistent disagreement in this comment thread which is why I want to factor it out.

This discussion was useful for getting a more precise sense of what exactly it is you assign high probability to.