I'm genuinely curious; did you truly not understand the intent of author in the comment you are replying to?
When someone says the "world is worse", I automatically know they mean a value judgment "for them" or "for humans" or "for animals" and not some scientific, objective measure on the "Planet Earth Goodness Scale".
A valid criticism in this case is that they are clearly valuing humans above other species because the world is objectively worse for the Rusty-patched bumble bee, to pick an example, which is critically endangered.
I don't know, but Steven Pinker (the loudest proponent of this claim) says such sincerely, and besides him, most ordinary people are moral/value realists and think there are genuine answers to these types of questions.
Yes, but that is still value laden. You cannot objectively compare 2 different domains like the benefit of improved healthcare vs the cost of destroyed ecosystems.
When someone says the "world is worse", I automatically know they mean a value judgment "for them" or "for humans" or "for animals" and not some scientific, objective measure on the "Planet Earth Goodness Scale".
A valid criticism in this case is that they are clearly valuing humans above other species because the world is objectively worse for the Rusty-patched bumble bee, to pick an example, which is critically endangered.