The key question here, which is one of "progress," is to ask: what, exactly, is progressing? In other words, "have advanced where?" This is a major question that historians of science and technology in particular grapple with, because science and technology are frequently cited as the places in which this "progress" has occurred, or cited as the "engine" of this progress.

Areas where it is probably fair to say we have advanced dramatically in the past 130 years:

• Sanitation

• Reduction of dire poverty

• Number of people living under democracies

• Infant mortality rate decreases

• Height of buildings

• Computational capability

• Agricultural efficiency

• Treatability of many previously fatal or untreatable medical conditions

• Capability for creation of virtual pets

• Technical capacity for mass slaughter and self-extinction

• Capacity for mass imprisonment

• Capacity for mass pollution

• Size of the human population

Which as you can see can look like "progress" or not. Some of these are important, some of these are trivial, some of these are not good at all. I do not want to belittle the "good" ones (I am a beneficiary of them, and would not choose to live in the the pre-modern past!), but I also think we cannot overlook the "bad" ones (the 20th century was one of the bloodiest in human history, and that is not separable from the same advancements that made it "progress").

One can "objectively" measure some of these things (e.g., population is the easiest), but some harder to measure.

There are areas where it is not clear that "progress" has really been made, or at least it is disputable that we have made huge strides in the last century or so:

• Capacity for making great art

• Capacity for thinking better thoughts (e.g., philosophy)

• Capacity for being more humane towards people who are different than us

• Capacity for effective governance

• Capacity for avoiding war

• Capacity for being more moral or ethical

• Capacity for acting with more forethought

• Capacity for love, empathy, understanding

And so forth. One can readily see that the second category is about human behavior and psychology, whereas much of the first is largely (but not entirely) about technology and the benefits and hazards that come with it. Which gets at the rub: technologically, the human species has gained immense capabilities in the last century. Whether this is "progress" depends on your point of view (the Amish, for example, famously do not think technology is an end to itself, and would probably not see it as progress, whereas for them developments along moral lines, as they define them, would matter more), but we can certainly admit an increase in ability. Human behavior and psychology seems roughly what it has been: it can vary by place and time, it can be very generous and accepting at times, very harsh and fearful at others. Sometimes technology seems to affect this one way (e.g., making us more empathetic), but just as often it seems to do the opposite (e.g., making us more clannish). I don't think there's any consensus about whether it has enable "progress" in this respect, in any obvious way.

I would also make one more "cautionary" reminder: a century and a half is but a blip in human history. Will this be seen as the great expansion that continued? Or the exponential increase that led to crash and ruin? Who can say? But to guess at the future based on our momentary "rise" is a dangerous game. Imagine how the Romans felt, with their roads, Empire, and glory! How easy to imagine it was the beginning of a new world, one that would last forever!

Beware those who show you "progress" graphs with carefully chosen axes (which has become a minor cottage industry these days among white, male, wealthy academics, who seek to assure us that despite the apparent chaos of our world, and the looming threat of massive displacement caused by climate change, all is well in hand and "getting better"), or with effects that rely on the fact that the population has gotten large so everything negative that is "per capita" has tended to decrease. They know not the future, and frequently they know not the past. Neither of which are necessarily linear. Consider what a graph of "lead poisoning" would look like over time — a huge spike in the middle of the 20th century (from leaded gasoline), and finally a decline of it (as it was banned). What does "progress" mean in such a context, where you can create new problems out of wholecloth without realizing it, and then belatedly try to fix them? This is how the real world functions, outside of the fantasies of those who would see it as moving in straightforward directions: sometimes forward, sometimes back, and to what, ultimate, destination? We do not know, we cannot know, though we can try to influence it.