David Welch wrote:
> But life expectancy has simultaneously increased, so it might well be that
> total leisure time has increased. I'd imagine leisure time is also a bit
> more interesting than it was 12000 years ago.
Life expectancy figures can be misleading. They usually mean life expectancy at birth, and hence are strongly affected by infant and child mortality rates. If you calculate life expectancy at 40, at 45, at 60, etc. the gain is not always so great. Our assumptions about "progress" are strongly influenced by the fact that, however much human misery was involved in the process that brought *us* personally into existence, still we sort of like being here.
And as far "interesting" goes, there is an old proverb, "Woe to those who live in interesting times."
Carrol