To be fair, there is a lot of progress going on these days, but even if there was none - there would be all kinds of "growth" to be squeezed out of what the giants before us built. The internet can still bring a lot more of that "literacy" to the world.
But you can't deny the diminished optimism about technology, and the future in general. We can't get Fusion, we can't get quantum computing, we won't have a base on the moon, expensive physics experiments find nothing practial.
Sure, if you ignore the imminent climate catastrophe, fueled by the same engines powering most of the other advancements.
And the increasing income inequality that is blowing major winds in the sails of fascism in Europe and the USA.
And the looming threat of nuclear war as tensions between NATO and Russia are at a 50 year high.
> Yet I also think it's a fallacy to think that means we should try to model our society on the past. Even if those "top men" were alive and guiding society, I doubt they would be able to solve our problems.
This part I do agree with 100%.
You could just as well argue that that's because of the golden age of science. The past is not something to be revered by definition, but there definitely are achievements that deserve our respect. And we might not be as good at keeping society in its current state as one would hope.
* Quantity of school shootings
* Respect for science, scientists, and scientific institutions
* Rates of mental illness
* Severity of natural disasters
I believe all of these things have gotten worse over time.
I agree we should not forget the accomplishments of our predecessors. Yet I also think it's a fallacy to think that means we should try to model our society on the past. Even if those "top men" were alive and guiding society, I doubt they would be able to solve our problems.