I feel like people are confusing things here. The argument isn't that art and music are progressing at a greater rate, it's that there are both awesome and terrible things out there now, like there have always been. I see progress here as referring to development and change, not saying that it's somehow inherently better than everything that's come before.
Exactly as Kestra
, you insult my literacy, and yet completely failed to understand my argument. Why are you being so obtuse? I was using the phrase 'near-exponential' as a non-literal qualifier to argue that science is progressing at a remarkable rate. Apologies, as I did not realize this would cause you so much confusion. The claim that we are more literate than we have ever been is not dubious, unless you can demonstrate a point in history when a greater percentage of the world's population could read. Can you do so?
I asked for objective measures of the claimed devolution of society. In asking I was hoping to specifically demonstrate that by using the entirely subjective (art and music) as evidence, your stance is unsupportable. I never claimed that art and music were improving in some objective quality, only that, as Kestra
noted, there has always been good and bad, and that it is a very near-sighted and silly position indeed to pronounce the decline of civilization based on one's own distaste towards new music. This position also belies a huge amount of egotism, as you must presume to have knowledge of all the art and music out there, and further presume that you're own opinion of it is more valid than other people's.
Again, we are more scientifically advanced than ever before, and our science and technology are inarguably progressing. We are more literate than ever before. You have admitted that the quality of art and music is subjective and so cannot be used as objective evidence to support your position. So, do you have objective evidence of the decline of culture? And can you possibly provide it without being rude?