Yes, on the whole the developing world probably is becoming a better place. But the long term worry is about where they are going to be when they become developed. Life in the developed world seems to be getting worse for most people: more stressed; more unequal; less civil; less moral, less sane; less democratic. So while the chances of most of the world reaching the best condition human societies are capable of reaching have improved, my estimate of how good that best is, has gotten a lot worse.

How do you "lift" the poor of 3rd world nations? By outsourcing jobs from the wealthier nations of course. For the price of one worker in the US, you can easily hire 5 in developing nations and lift all of them out of poverty.

Coming from the US, this is not exactly something which Americans want is it?

Seriously, I respect blind optimists and their belief in a better future. However, I am sick and tired of these people writing these books and making these documentaries that are all about recognizing ; "hey, we're doing all right". All they end up accomplishing is large scale complacency. guess what, when something unprecedented happens, like say, nearly every scientist on Earth saying that we need to get our act together NOW...i'd say it's time to listen. Fear is okay, so is uncertainty, they are great motivators for change. When you write a book that essentially says, we should be happy about our current predicament, you are simply pandering to the morons out there who think that everything will be okay if we do nothing...it won't be.

Getting Better? Really?
My question: Who benefits? Who pays? Human's are not the only species dependent on ecological services. First law of ecology: You can never do just one thing.

A good thought piece:

Costanza, R. 2000. Visions of alternative (unpredictable) futures and their use in policy analysis. Conservation Ecology 4(1): 5. [online] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol4/iss1/art5/

ABSTRACT

The most critical task facing humanity today is the creation of a shared vision of a sustainable and desirable society, one that can provide permanent prosperity within the biophysical constraints of the real world in a way that is fair and equitable to all of humanity, to other species, and to future generations. Recent work with businesses and communities indicates that creating a shared vision is the most effective engine for change in the desired direction, yet most effort in "futures modeling" has focused on extrapolating past trends rather than envisioning alternative futures. Science and economics as applied to policy are in conflict more often over alternative visions of the world than purely "scientific" disagreements. Likewise, governance has gotten bogged down in mediating short term conflicts between special interests rather than its more basic role of creating broadly shared visions that can guide dispute resolution.

This paper addresses the question of what policies are most appropriate for society now, given alternative visions of the future and the enormous uncertainty about the reality of the assumptions underlying these visions. Four specific visions are laid out as being representative of the major alternatives. For each vision the benefits of achieving the vision, the assumptions that would have to be true in order for it to be achieved, and the implications of it being attempted but not achieved are explored. It is argued that dealing with uncertainty about the nature of the world, its carrying capacity for humans, the impacts of climate change, and other aspects of its future can best be done at this level of future visions and assumptions, not at more detailed levels (like the parameter uncertainty in models). Application of this vision/uncertainty analysis can help us both to design the future society we want and to maximize the chances of our getting there safely