[Amezarak]

All those things are great, or at least you and I think they are.

But that's not the question. The question is do those things make for greater human thriving and fulfillment? Increasing things that people find pleasurable does not necessarily have this effect. As a simple and extreme example, consider heroin.

I read a lot of old stuff, with a focus on anything I can find from regular people. I used to think like you do. I'm much less convinced nowadays that we've really made people's lives better in a meaningful, non-material way, excepting a very few examples that GP already alluded to (e.g., reduction in infant mortality, which accounts for virtually the entire life expectancy increase since 1850.)

[GoblinSlayer]

In the past they had to worry about growing wheat and not getting eaten by wolves, today they are mildly depressed at dislikes in twitter. You think it's a worse situation? I think people from the past would laugh at twitter problems.

[flippinburgers]

Have you spent much time with people who deeply ruminate over their online persona? Not only is it a thing but very alarmingly people quickly go sideways into weird places. In a way I feel that less immediate suffering around us has led us to simply displace that bucket of pain into other areas of our lives. So better in a sense yes but the perceived improvement ... I"m not sure that many people are emotionally reaping the benefits.

[glomgril]

Yeah this is pretty much my line of thinking. Not making any grand claims, just questioning the conventional wisdom. No doubt that the material conditions, health, and conveniences of today are unparalleled in history, that's just not what I'm talking about right now.

[tuatoru]

I think you are talking about "meaning" in life, the sense of being part of something larger than yourself, that isn't just accumulation for accumulation's sake. There is a debate there, no doubt.

The scientists and engineers that work insane hours at SpaceX are probably looking for something like that.

But in the past, for most people, life was merely a struggle to survive, that they lost sooner rather than later.

[arp242]

"Struggle to survive" gives meaning to life though. And one of the best ways to form deep connections with people is shared hardship.

It's really hard to say what's "better" in any sort of objective and quantifiable way; but it seems to me that by making the basics of life very easy we've sort of lost something along the way.

After all, playing a game that's so easy that it doesn't provide any challenge isn't much fun either, right?

[throwaway675309]

The "Struggle to survive" gives meaning to life though.

No, it doesn't, this is just one of those banal transcendental platitudes that gets repeated enough to where it sounds like it's some sort of objective truth. Like the one about how "life only has meaning because it is short and ephemeral". By that logic an aborted fetus has had the richest life of all.

Life's meaning is ultimately in the eyes of the beholder. We all derive meaning differently, there is no universal solvent.

[Isinlor]

You are free to make your life as difficult as you want. You can move to Alaska and try to survive there from manual work.

There is a very good reason why people want to go from poor countries to rich and not the other way around. Poverty is not fun.

[faeriechangling]

I think of this a lot whenever I hear people complain the world is too luxurious. I mean really people do have the option to live in more squalid conditions but they seem like they'd rather wax poetic behind their keyboards. It smacks of insincerity.

[GoblinSlayer]

I get no joy from a game I can't clear.

[faeriechangling]

I would very much argue diet IF properly utilized can indeed change your life for the better. Better nutrition just makes you feel good all the time while also making you live longer.

[__pache__]

That blows me away. Have you ever lost anyone?