The Saturation View is neat and it's great to get something genuinely new in population ethics, but it seems obvious to me that Homogeneity is better than Variety.

To move from Homogeneity to Variety, you have to make some particular person's life worse without making anyone else's life better. And what can you say to that harmed person? You can point to the increased variety in the universe, but the facts of the case imply that absolutely no one benefits from this variety. No one cares about this increased variety, at least in some sense of the word 'care.' You yourself -- the person choosing Variety over Homogeneity -- wouldn't care if you were incarnated into this universe.

I think Bostrom puts a thought like this pretty well in Deep Utopia: "the question is not 'How interesting is a utopia to look at?' but rather 'How good is it to live in?'."