And even if we are better off compared to the past, it doesn't mean we are in a better situation today given the increasing wealth inequality. Pinker is selecti

And even if we are better off compared to the past, it doesn't mean we are in a better situation today given the increasing wealth inequality. Pinker is selectively emphasizing the socio-economic comparisons with the past and ignoring current socio-economic comparisons between population groups. If the gap between rich and the rest is wider today than it was 50 years ago, are we really better off? Lets say you have a boxing match and your opponent's boxing gloves are slightly better than yours. The next boxing match, your opponent gives you his boxing gloves and he uses brass knuckles. You're currently better off compared to your previous self since you have better boxing gloves. But the distance between your current self and your opponent ( brass knuckles ) has increased significantly. So are you really better off? It's like two groups going to battle. In the first battle, group A fights with wiffle bats and group B fights with baseball bats. For the next battle, group A wises up and brings baseball bats. But group B brings machine guns. Technically, in battle 2, group A is better off with baseball bats rather than wiffle bats. But the "distance" between them and their opponent has increased significantly so you'd be hard pressed to say they are better off in battle 2. This is the same trick economists use. Just because things improve in absolute terms over time doesn't mean that things are better off comparatively within societies.