The article was essentially asking is quality of life after agriculture better than that of hunter-gatherers. Scientific advancements themselves aren't an answe

The article was essentially asking is quality of life after agriculture better than that of hunter-gatherers. Scientific advancements themselves aren't an answer to that question. At the end of the day, the same things that mattered then matter now: health, companionship, relationships, social status. Technology does not across the board enhance these things (and in many ways it reduces the baseline of these properties). So if you want to make an argument that technology makes us strictly happier than our ancestors you're going to have to provide some kind of reasoning. Isn't that what's expected around here?