The idea I'm trying to convey is that there's an upwards trend in history. Until very recently, we can say humanity was doing very good (awesome hits and a few

The idea I'm trying to convey is that there's an upwards trend in history. Until very recently, we can say humanity was doing very good (awesome hits and a few blunders). Think of a graph. Each time life unquestionably improves the graph goes up. On blunders, it goes down. Now, even if you have lots of blunders, you can still point to a relative place in the past you were doing worse than now. You could claim "that in the big picture" you're ahead, despite having had a lot of recent blunders. To avoid this illusion, we must always do the comparison step-by-step. Is now better than 10 years ago? and that was better or worse than further 10 years prior? and so on. If you consider that this is the way of doing this, then this line of reasoning becomes unviable. Furthermore, history is not segmented in equally distributed steps. The further you go into the past, the larger are the segments, and lower is your resolution to see what happened. It's another illusion. Do you understand why comparing _exactly now_ with _exactly 500 years ago_ while conveniently hiding a lot of in-betweens is a fallacy? It could be that it's right, and we're on a win streak, but the very means the argument uses to showcase this idea are, in principle, not very solid and could hide a lie. I often prefers ways of investigating history that cannot possibly hide lies within, which leads me to question when someone tries to push a way that could be hiding a lie or not. It's definitely not about my quality of life. Also, the critique I'm making to what I called "snapshot" comparisons could be used for any other similar metric. The discretization of steps and the choice of snapshots can hide misinformation, and it represents an unreliable line of reasoning.