In The Giver, how has the absence of color helped this society? How has it harmed it?

In The Giver, the lack of color is meant to promote sameness, to eliminate any variety or envy amongst the denizens of the community.  This, I suppose, could be an advantage for the society in that the people need not concern themselves with having to make choices or worry about whether or not their shirts match their trousers, for example. They can focus on their work and following the rules.  I imagine this does make for a more peaceful society, with no one envying someone who has a beautiful blue dress.  The production of material goods is simplified, too, since the making of clothes, furniture, or even bicycles need not include a variety of colors.  For the Elders, certainly, it is far easier to rule a group of people who have no envy and who can stay focused on whatever it is they are expected to do for the good of the community. 

On the other hand, much of the beauty in life rests on color and other forms of variability.  Eliminating color eliminates a great deal of the beauty and richness in the world and takes away one more kind of choice. Thus, the elimination of color confers a kind of aesthetic impoverishment on the people, as well as rendering them without choice in yet one more way.