Hello, I would like to ask you a few questions to better understand your position, as I have seen other people say similar things and it is a bit confusing to me.

-Less starvation/poverty/war/crime as a percentage of the population, or as a total number? Surely the total amount of suffering on Earth is much greater now than ever before; nearly 8 billion people alive now, and if 1 billion are poor then that is greater than the total population of the world until sometime in the 1800s.

-How is poverty measured? If a self-sufficient village of people used to live off the land, off-grid, with no money, and now they moved to a city slum where they earn $2/day on average... is that considered *less* poverty, because now they have *more* money?

-Are you taking environmental factors into account? Even if social/economic metrics have improved, isn't it concerning that we are also much closer to several major crises -- rapidly increasing CO2 levels and impending climate crises (with far-reaching social effects), a massive human-caused extinction event and loss of biodiversity, the loss of a significant percentage of forests worldwide, microplastics permeating nearly everywhere... and all this with a much larger population to feed while several of these factors promise to make food production more tricky?

-Even if the metrics you talk about are true, does the increasing imbalance of wealth not seem problematic? Even if life is improving for people on average, couldn't it be improving much faster if we didn't allow just a handful of wealthy men control the same amount of wealth as the poorest 4 billion humans?