It's kind of like "entropy is always trying to destroy structures, these are just the ones that continue to work" or whatever? Like, "nature is in fact constantly trying other ways of continuing these structures--they just get destroyed faster than they can be built" or whatever?

Right but okay so I'm not that big of a philosopher or whatever, but I do get where they're coming from when they say "Poor people today enjoy luxuries that kings in medieval times could only dream of." Like, society has always progressed and quality of life has always gone up, at least since the Renaissance.

PS Maybe not for the developing world and Native reservations and stuff... but I guess what I'm arguing against is the idea that you can't create a list of pros and cons, that there's just cons.