>Based on how I use means vs. ends for instance, I would say that economic development, higher literacy, better health outcomes, and robust human rights protections are inherently good.

Nothing is inherently good. Those things are all things that tend to be good for modern urbanized centers. To the extent that "economic development" has meant shifting from primary and secondary economic activities to tertiary ones, it has been deveststing to many rural areas and small towns. Literacy is of course very important in a knowledge-based economy, which is good, if you happen to be in a position to thrive in such an economy. "Better health outcomes" sounds like it might be one of those things you could get universal agreement on, but after watching a parent die of Alzheimer's at 80, you might wonder if helping them avoid a heart attack at 75 was really such a good idea. And of course, by "robust human rights protections" I assume you include a variety of policies opposed by solid majorities of those living outside major metropolitan areas.