Well, the devil is in the word "generally." How can something be general if it means progress in one case and regression in another? You can somehow assume that people are better off today than they were four hundred years ago, but what aspects of that do you want to base that on? On health, on income? Then you have to ask, what is health, what is income? Nevertheless, I do not want to pretend that I do not know what you are talking about. I believe to know that it is generally better today than it was hundreds of years ago, yet I do not know exactly. I assume that we are materially better off, but all the sparrows are calling from the rooftops: But mentally. But psychically! Then one would have to ask: What does "today" actually mean? Am I better off than my mother? Sure I am. Materially and in terms of degrees of freedom. But how much do I suffer in the care of those who come after me? For example, when I think of my son and his peers?

When he said the other day that we needed a printer, I said, "Really? Isn't it wiser to use the printer at my work, since it's not used all day anyway? And is it wise that we all have our own washing machine here in the house? Wouldn't it be wiser to share two washing machines in the basement? And he said, "Three would be better."

Such a thing is called regressive economically because it reduces consumption, but could be called very progressive ecologically because it protects the environment. Can we think of progressiveness differently than in terms of production and profit? Can we be the more progressive the less we work and produce?

What would you say: how do you imagine a progressive world?