[adamc]

Well, except that people got sick and had very limited medical treatments, and their lifespans were shorter. How do you weight that?

Also, how do you weight the absence of toys and creature comforts?

[littletimmy]

The point about toys and creature comforts is hardly important enough to address. Do you honestly think kids are happier with a motorized car than they are with a hand-stitched doll?

Your point about people being sick is valid, but not to the extent that you think. Firstly, it is not wise to suggest that hunter-gatherers were physically worse off than us. They got a lot of exercise, and were in all likelihood better physically. Secondly, the shorter lifespans statistic is an artifact of increased childhood mortality. Once you discount the child mortality, they had lifespans very similar to ours. Without all the diseases of affluence that we have, mind you (diabetes, for example).

[yourepowerless]

Taking away a kids phone and giving him a doll will likely elicit a violent response, but cool on you to decide what brings people happiness.

[huac]

That's inane. You'd be happy with a million dollars in your bank account but a billionaire would be pissed in the same situation.

I think it's important to look at war, disease, hunger, and displacement, in some order.