"Second, the gains in average education and health of the workforce over the last 50 years are unlikely to be repeated" I'm cautious about arguments that rely

"Second, the gains in average education and health of the workforce over the last 50 years are unlikely to be repeated" I'm cautious about arguments that rely on a pessimistic expectation that progress will reverse because it's just never continued in the past. If the argument identified some fundamental reasons why progress will slow instead of drawing historical correlations then it would have merit. Then again if we knew those principles then we could correct our society and avoid disaster. Because this argument is flawed and human knowledge and understanding is the only thing that solves human problems, the validity of the argument is lost.