My thoughts: If it were in the nature of things to change for the better, it wouldn’t matter if they were impermanent; a temporary existence in the deva loka would be succeeded by one in the rupa loka.
Before I discovered Buddha Dhamma, I smoked a pack of cigarettes a day. It didn’t matter to me that the value I derived from that experience was temporary, as I could simply light up another cigarette.
If someone were to claim that Anicca means impermanence, I would ask them what the significance of things being impermanent is. If you need to ask follow-up questions when a person describes Anicca, then that isn’t a definition they are describing; at best, it’s an attribute. I see this happen a lot when people explain Pali terms.
I could add more, but I need to go to work! I appreciate the thoughtful discussion, though.
