Pick 100 random people from 100 random times in history. Millennials will have objectively better quality of life than almost all of them. That isn't to say that we don't have a huge number of problems that should be completely solvable, but good grief, we need some perspective here.
I completely agree with you. However, I'm responding to the OP's thesis which seems to be at least partially rooted in a critique of material conditions. I definitely think there's a deeper argument to be explored here around how we can be one of the most materially rich societies in history and also perhaps the least happy.
Pick 100 random people from 100 different places of Earth. The HN reader will (statistically) have the objectively most inane future-optimism out of all of them, latching onto Elon Musk tweets about colonizing Mars, democratizing technology by way of the latest “decentralized” trend, thinking that nuclear power + EV will solve climate change, just to name a few.
They will also have at least double the expected income of whatever group they decide to harangue for not apprecating their “quality of life”.
How does this respond to parent, which didn't even mention other generations, cavemen, medieval serfs, etc? Who really benefits from this "perspective" you suggest? Not the millennials under discussion, nor 99% of anyone else. You certainly don't benefit from it, so why suggest it?
Let me be more direct: suggesting that the life of the average Millennial is so uniquely miserable that the best approach is to give up trying to make things better, and implant simulated memories is one of the most myopic, selfish and self serving drivel I've heard in recent memory.
Here you attempt to distract from the basic dishonesty of your inter-generational "whataboutism" through critique of something GP didn't suggest. GP's observations of the present and near-future are discouraging, but they're accurate. The cavemen and the serfs are not our opponents; our opponents are alive right now. GP speculated that we could be kinder to the dying (seriously, that's what you're arguing against), but didn't recommend surrender.
[I had a suggestion for "action" here, but I deleted it before posting.]
I think it's supposed to explain that because the hardworking and underpaid are better off than cavemen, they will also obviously continue to be better off than cavemen, so all problems are therefore tractable, and also currently being solved. Also, that if you live better than a caveman you should show some gratitude and stop complaining. Something something Steven Pinker Dr. Pangloss.
