> If you zoom out a little, to, say, the 1910s to 2010s, it's hard to make the argument that people are worse off on average.
Only want to point out this is a horrendous fallacy. Technology has increased wealth to exponential levels. Yes, I do expect things to be at least a bit better but there are measures of well being that cannot be expressed in the size of one's flat screen TV. Job security, access to healthcare, education, basic services and living in an inclusive and just society.
By these metrics are we doing so much better? And let's not justify the unfortunate conditions of the present by the worse conditions of the past.
> By these metrics are we doing so much better? And let's not justify the unfortunate conditions of the present by the worse conditions of the past.
Yes. Yes, we are. Realize that in the 1910s, electricity was not in widespread use, millions died each year from diseases now treatable or totally nonexistent (e. g. smallpox), and we were on the verge of two of the deadliest wars in human history.
It's frankly absurd to suggest that the only benefits of technological and scientific increases over the past century have been flatscreen TVs or creature comforts, or even that these are the primary innovations. Humanity's inventions over the past century have been a big, massive deal. Not dying from things as simple as influenza, being able to cross the country by plane in just a few hours, and near-universal (in the US) access to indoor plumbing, electricity, clean water and at least basic emergency medical care have already put us well beyond the level of those times. I won't even get into live birth rates, infant mortality, life expectancy, or overall risk of death due to accident or disease.
But overall, I'm not justifying current problems as being OK because things used to be worse - I'm trying to remind everyone that society is a process, not an endpoint, and for as far as we've come we've got to be willing to take time and withstand some suffering to go further.
The facts you cite are irrefutably true. However, I'd question the notion that technological progress is synonymous with social/human progress. Although technological progress might make human progress easier, it doesn't guarantee it (IMHO).
I suppose it comes down to how one defines 'human progress'. For me, the more relevant issue is how humans interact with each other (mostly at the non-individual level). I mean, we've mostly gotten past hanging out in small tribes, killing members of other small tribes in order to take their stuff. Arguably, we've made progress. But it's not entirely clear to me whether we've fundamentally changed our nature, or if the tribes have just gotten bigger.
So although I'd agree that technological progress plays a role, I think it's an indirect one. Technology makes resources more plentiful. In turn, this makes it easier to get by without having to murder anyone. But it's no guarantee that we won't. Indeed, we seem to be at our most inventive when some other tribe is trying to kill us and we're trying to do the same right back (i.e. during times of war)...
Interesting points. I think you are right that technological progress doesn't imply societal progress, I think there may be a relationship that goes the other way around: societal progress can cause technological progress, or at least, more rapid technological progress. A society that is dedicated to eliminating its collective problems, to easing the burden of the less fortunate within it, will necessarily divert resources to finding to ways to do so.
> But it's not entirely clear to me whether we've fundamentally changed our nature, or if the tribes have just gotten bigger.
I think part of the reason for this lack of clarity is that we are going through this change right now. We're in the middle of it, with people at all ranges between "totally tribalist" and "totally humanist" (if "humanist" is the right term to use there, as in advocating for all peoples). Nationalism is one kind of pseudo-tribalism that is about more than just who your family is, and I'd argue globalism is another step along the path towards a less tribal society.
The other issue is that not everyone agrees that becoming less tribal is a good thing, so you have some people actively trying to speed the change, and other people actively trying to slow or even reverse it. So, yeah... it gets pretty confusing.
Only want to point out this is a horrendous fallacy. Technology has increased wealth to exponential levels. Yes, I do expect things to be at least a bit better but there are measures of well being that cannot be expressed in the size of one's flat screen TV. Job security, access to healthcare, education, basic services and living in an inclusive and just society.
By these metrics are we doing so much better? And let's not justify the unfortunate conditions of the present by the worse conditions of the past.