> I certainly don't believe in being "better off"

I do. Archeological evidence of American colonists' bones reveal that they worked extremely hard and died young. Look at their clothes in a museum - they look like childrens' sizes. Look at their teeth in bones in museums. Do you prefer teeth like that?

I can buy an orange any day of the year. I have hot/cold running water. I'm warm in winter. I have clean water to drink. I have ice cream in the summer. I have endless entertainment at the push of a button. I can talk at any time to any family/friend anywhere in the world at my whim.

I'd probably be dead by my age if I lived 200 years ago.

If you have no option for better teeth, how much does that impact you? Serious question.

I really should have framed my example in terms of happiness rather than quality of life.

There are many terrible diseases today for which there is no effective treatment. Do you believe people are happy with that situation? I don't.

> Just because you aren't about to die of tetanus does not mean your quality of life has improve at all.

I have asthma and require corrective lenses. My quality of life is orders of magnitude better now than it would have been even 100 years ago.

People writing stuff like this should spend a year in a disease prone third world country away from all modern technologies like electricity and internet. Then you'll understand whether you really have a higher quality of life or not.

Well that's the thing, isn't it? Are you really more likely to be unhappy (or happy) unless you've seen both worlds? Happiness is relative to your frame of reference.

Disease is unfortunate. So is the destruction of our earth. The people dearest to me live thousands of miles apart and talk to me through Facebook. That too is unfortunate.

I simply wish i could dictate the terms of my lifestyle and I cannot. I understand most do not grapple with this problem.