On what measure? Certainly he is quite healthy and even considered sick.

On every measure, there was never a better time in the history of civilization to live.

Graeber & Wengrow propose an interesting set of 3 measures:

>But for us, the key point to remember is that we are not talking here about ‘freedom’ as an abstract ideal or formal principle (as in ‘Liberty, Equality and Fraternity!’). Over the course of these chapters we have instead talked about basic forms of social liberty which one might actually put into practice: (1) the freedom to move away or relocate from one’s surroundings; (2) the freedom to ignore or disobey commands issued by others; and (3) the freedom to shape entirely new social realities, or shift back and forth between different ones.

>What we can now see is that the first two freedoms – to relocate, and to disobey commands – often acted as a kind of scaffolding for the third, more creative one. Let us clarify some of the ways in which this ‘propping-up’ of the third freedom actually worked. As long as the first two freedoms were taken for granted, as they were in many North American societies when Europeans first encountered them, the only kings that could exist were always, in the last resort, play kings. If they overstepped the line, their erstwhile subjects could always ignore them or move someplace else. The same would go for any other hierarchy of offices or system of authority. Similarly, a police force that operated for only three months of the year, and whose membership rotated annually, was in a certain sense a play police force – which makes it slightly less bizarre that their members were sometimes recruited directly from the ranks of ritual clowns.

>It’s clear that something about human societies really has changed here, and quite profoundly. The three basic freedoms have gradually receded, to the point where a majority of people living today can barely comprehend what it might be like to live in a social order based on them.

--David Graeber & David Wengrow (2021) The Dawn of Everything, p. 503.

https://digressionsnimpressions.typepad.com/digressionsimpre...

Huh? At what point in human history moving was more accessible than now?

Prehistoric humans could barely move around and until recently slavery ment average Joe had 0 freedom.

Simply wrong and I provided a link with at least some references and passages that answer that

The quotes you mentioned say nothing about the two issues I raised.

Not what I said, but - goodbye

The article is no better. It says there was free movement between tribes and over large distances, but there's no real proof of the first one, and the last one is only mentioned for large communities, not for individuals.

the book provides refs

> On every measure

Are we happier than we used to be? Are we more connected? Are we less lonely?

Obesity in a world where you could diet and exercise is still preferable to starvation in a world without easy access to food. At one time it was a sign of wealth and privilege to be able to afford enough calories to put on any weight at all, and enough leisure time to not have to work it all off through brutal, constant labor.

You say it is preferable today. In a way we all must agree it’s preferable. Unlike the state’s “social contract” which you cannot exit, any of us could - for the price of a bus ticket - find ourselves back in the wild. None of us go.

But just because humans have a revealed preference doesn’t mean that’s the way we should live.

In all honesty, I don’t think abundant food itself is a problem, but I do think the ethos of democracy basically allows everyone to ignore should questions and an addicted and obese population is the result.

Imagine showing our world to an 19th century English laborer. They would be awe of our technological achievements, but I think they’d find our social structures extremely distressing.