Everything you are saying is irrelevant to the argument I was making. My whole point is that the per capita GDP growth from then to now is not just a matter of us being more than 100x better at farming, or other things that we do now that they also did then; it is a matter of us being able to do things that did not event exist and were not even conceivable in the Stone Age.
In what way is it irrelevant?
If more than 6% of current GDP is from farming, which it is, then everything else adds up to less than 20x the value farming provides. That’s just simple math.
So, we can just compare agricultural production and absolutely ignore everything else because it’s already included in the above calculation.
PS: Now you can argue that you care more about the internet or healthcare than a meal. But, I guarantee you would quickly change your mind if you had not eaten in several months. Food is an absolutely required and unlike air and water not naturally available for free in vast quantities.
I am not saying you’re being disingenuous, but you listed stuff without context. A 1% slice of a pie looks tiny, you need numbers to judge these things not lists.
The context is farmers and ranchers still make up 1.3% of the labor force in the US, but globally 28% of the population are just farmers. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sl.agr.empl.zs Sure, more productive society’s have whither output for everything but agriculture adds up to ~6% global GDP / per capita GDP.
Now, we can argue that today’s food is better, but meat and fish likely made up a significant fraction of the Stone Age diet. So, suggesting it’s more than 6x more expensive using today’s market value seems unlikely. Note, food going bad is irrelevant as the value existed at one point, and food is temporary.
PS: Of course the population is also ~1,000x as large. So total worldwide GDP should be ~100,000x as large by my estimate, if that makes you more comfortable.