How many of us still get in cars and commute to work, sit in an office, as we are monitored by our boss, drive home through some awful commute. Then eat some processed food because we didn't have time to go to the grocery store and get some fresh food. I'm sure there are plenty on this site who telecommute and bike, but that's not the norm.
I hate to tell you this, but if you're in a developed country like the US, then take your socioeconomic percentile and call it X. You have a better life in 2012 than the Xth-percentile person of 1950, 1900, 1800, 1600, and on back. There's a strong tendency to compare the average person's life (which, compared to the expectations of a high-IQ person with access to technology and therefore superior alternatives, is admittedly quite shitty) now to the life of an aristocrat in the past, and therefore conclude that things were better, but that's wildly inaccurate.
The malaise comes from a couple factors. First, most peoples' lives are still shitty, and what's becoming more clear is that this is unnecessarily so, thus showcasing the rottenness of human nature. It's no longer the fault of "scarcity". People just fucking suck-- they're greedy, petty, and would rather reign in hell than serve in heaven. The useless and counterproductive power structures remain because there are assholes who really like holding power and don't care if they're playing a negative-sum game. We probably have one more violent class revolution (possibly worldwide) in our human story before we make it to the post-scarcity (ca. 2100?) world. Second, technological and economic growth have slowed down (not stopped, but slowed) over the past 30 years due to a lack of investment in basic research. Rather than accelerating toward a singularity, we've gone from 6% growth per year to about 4%. This is a slow patch, no doubt, but at least it's not decline.
I'd say an Xth percentile person in 2012 has a better life than an X+30th percentile person in 1950 at the very least. Most people haven't fully explored all the consequences of everything that's changed in the last 62 years, but they would be outraged to go back.
What would it mean for a 79th percentile person in 2012 to have a better life than a 109th percentile person in 1950? Percentiles don't actually go that high.
I hate to tell you this, but if you're in a developed country like the US, then take your socioeconomic percentile and call it X. You have a better life in 2012 than the Xth-percentile person of 1950, 1900, 1800, 1600, and on back. There's a strong tendency to compare the average person's life (which, compared to the expectations of a high-IQ person with access to technology and therefore superior alternatives, is admittedly quite shitty) now to the life of an aristocrat in the past, and therefore conclude that things were better, but that's wildly inaccurate.
The malaise comes from a couple factors. First, most peoples' lives are still shitty, and what's becoming more clear is that this is unnecessarily so, thus showcasing the rottenness of human nature. It's no longer the fault of "scarcity". People just fucking suck-- they're greedy, petty, and would rather reign in hell than serve in heaven. The useless and counterproductive power structures remain because there are assholes who really like holding power and don't care if they're playing a negative-sum game. We probably have one more violent class revolution (possibly worldwide) in our human story before we make it to the post-scarcity (ca. 2100?) world. Second, technological and economic growth have slowed down (not stopped, but slowed) over the past 30 years due to a lack of investment in basic research. Rather than accelerating toward a singularity, we've gone from 6% growth per year to about 4%. This is a slow patch, no doubt, but at least it's not decline.