[toolz]

I think in the context of your question, you're turning "thriving" from an attempt at objective measurement to an entirely subjective metric. Feel free to correct me if that isn't the case, but if it becomes subjective to thrive, I don't know that there is a right or wrong answer to "in which era are people thriving the most?"

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

I think that parent meant "thriving" in the sense of emotionally, or perhaps spiritually. If we measure the number of people who are lonely, feel their lives are meaningless, and have no hope to be increasing rather than decreasing, then I think that's a pretty objective measure that we're not thriving.

[glomgril]

Yeah that's pretty much where I end up: what it means to "thrive" is subjective and there's just not really a matter of the fact about what lifestyle is "best" for humans. Nevertheless, there are some scenarios that I think would be close to universally viewed as worse or better than others. I think the era we're living in now is close to being universally viewed as better than the past. Grass is always greener though I spose

[ianburrell]

Measuring well-being is a whole field of study. Surveying happiness is part of it. But the surveys don't go back very far.

Happiness has been going up worldwide but it has been dropping in the US since 2010. Which might be a part of this post.

There is Human Development Index (HDI) that is used to compare countries. It is based on life expectancy, education, and income. By those measures, there has been a huge increase in the last two centuries. And a big increase in many countries in last 50 years. But that more covers physical not emotional needs.

[Smoosh]

I would add that there is such diversity among humans that what pleases or contents one will bore and anguish another. There is no single solution which is optimal for all.