When Columbus landed in what is today Haiti... the tribes there were not warring or violent. They were not starving. In many ways, depending upon which metrics you want to use, they were very well off. They were surrounded by friends, family, nature, and had a very healthy lifestyle. Of course, that's not gold or combustion engines or life support machines that can technically keep you alive and increase your life expectancy while you vegetate... but they were still arguably wealthy.

But, today, I can't go live off the land in the forests of Haiti. Even if the forests there still existed I couldn't. The same holds true for much of the world. Any relatively idyllic place is either already owned or regulated to the extent that no one is allowed to live there. And you certainly couldn't plant a coconut tree and enjoy its fruits for generations.

So it's really just an empty challenge suggesting that I go wander off and live in the woods to prove how nice it would be. I'd love to that. I'd love to. But the techno-industrial civilization in place simply does not allow for any random person to have that freedom.

> but it is dishonest to not acknowledge that the rate at which that is occurring is dropping and has been for decades.

Were we talking about just decades? I mean sure, in the decades since the invasion of Vietnam and Iraq the population there is doing better... but I don't think that's the best metric for overall improvement.

And not every place is improving. Much of Africa is undoubtedly much worse that it was hundreds of years ago before European colonization. One in eight people starving isn't an improvement brought about techno-industrial civilization, it's a CONSEQUENCE of techno-industrial civilization. It's the same with potable water. Most of the springs, streams, rivers weren't flooded with sewage and agricultural runoff 1000 or 100,000 years ago.

> dishonest to ignore that the percentage of people in the lowest margins of wealth has plummeted.

This just isn't true. Both in total numbers AND in relative degree of poverty, more people are poorer now than in the distant past. In fact, if you go back far enough, most people living in tribal societies had no discernible differentiation of wealth. And, again, most tribes weren't starving or unable to find clean water.

> There's no doubt that over time, the human condition has been and is improving.

This is a completely arbitrary assessment. People belonging to societies wiped out might disagree. The billion or so undernourished people currently alive might disagree. The two billion without ready access to clean water might disagree. And even the people who drive to work and work to drive might disagree.

> Humans, on the other hand, are just as awful as they have ever been.

That might be harder to measure. But I'd tend to bet that people are worse now than they were during most of human existence.