Think about how many more humans there are, and how unlikely one is to be a special snowflake. We can be special and needed by others - not to society. I don't think society will give us a role that we can emotionally engage with anymore and take pride in. The only way we can belong is to our relationships.
I agree with this, so I feel for the millions who are largely excluded from meaningful relationships because they have issues or are otherwise difficult or imperfect socially. And to be honest, who doesn't have issues or sometimes feel excluded? Or, more importantly, fear exclusion?
Social exclusion no longer means death for humans, but our brains are wired to feel that it does, and so there is an epidemic of loneliness, disconnection, and fear.
I'm not saying that the old days of completely depending on one's tribe of family and friends for survival was better in objective terms, but it was harmonious with our evolved instincts to be part of a small, mutually-connected group. Economic and social forces in a globalized society tend to act against the sustainability of such groups. So even those who are well-connected aren't as deeply connected, and are always threatened with potential loss of connection for unpredictable, uncontrollable economic or social reasons.
> We can be special and needed by others - not to society.
Only because "society" is too large. For millions of years, "society" meant the same as "others", who were a hundred or so folks in your particular band of primates. You could have a personal understanding with each one of them.
Now that "society" is 7 billion anonymous people, of course you don't matter in that context. Concepts like "universal brotherhood" make no sense, because meaning and belonging don't scale.
I would argue that feeling needed fulfills a deeper need. What people really want is a sense of connectedness, which could be to other people, or to the divine.
A connection with the divine is available to anyone, at any time. It is only because science has caused us to throw the spiritual baby out with the religious bathwater that we have lost our access.
In that entire article, that is the one thing you took away and felt the need to comment about here?
He never said this was the best time for every single human being in the entire world, nor did he say that now will definitely be better than the future. I think this was obvious for anyone reading it.
It's unfortunate that you chose to focus on such a small part of the overall theme he was trying to make.
And the theme was not just about physical need, but all human need. And if the point he was trying to make was that some humans do not get the basic necessities, the article would have been about that. But the fact that we see many people that DO have their basic human needs met and still feel they have no purpose, speaks to a much larger issue than curing poverty.
So, no, this is not the best time to be a human being.