Times are changing so fast that in our daily routine, we hear people comparing the present time with the past with a nostalgic longing for the moments that have gone by. I have hardly ever seen an elderly manspeaking good words about the present while comparing it with the past. Even the younger lot relish the past time while they have lots of complaints about the present time.Feeling uncomfortable with one’s present lot and being nostalgic about the past have become man’s second nature. However hard and unpleasant the past may be, it appears soothing and colourful. A more recent dimension of time is that there is “too much change in too short a period of time” which baffles the contemplating modern man. About 50 years ago, a British social thinker Alvin Toffler in his book “The Future Shock” defined the term ‘future shock’ as a certain psychological state of the present-day societies which up-sets their world view due to enormous structural revolution from an industrial society to a “super-industrial society”. This change overwhelms people. He believed that the accelerated rate of technological and social change left people disconnected and suffering from “shattering stress and disorientation”. According to him the term ‘future shock’ was a way of describing the social paralysis induced by rapid technological change. It is amazing how much the world has changed over the last century. New scientific discoveries and technological advancement have made our life much easier than it used to be in the past. Most significant change that the present age has brought about is that the man has become conscious of equality and freedom as their basic human rights, while in the past there was no concept of freedom or equality, and the powerful and wealthy exploited the poor and weak. Today, despite the differences in financial status, all people have the same rights. Another important change concerns the situation of women. In the past they were treated by men as “second class” citizens; had no power to vote, and were treated as no better than chattel, and were good only for pro-creation and raising families for men. Besides, it seems that the past was very turbulent. Many nations fought fierce wars and it was very common that cities and villages were ravaged by invaders. People felt insecure about their lives and about their future. What is more, lack of proper education was a main cause of superstitions. The epidemics of various diseases killed thousands of people, and there were no health facilities to treat patients. Considering all these factors, it seems obvious that now life is much better than it was in the past. However, it cannot be denied that in the past, life was not that hectic and stressful as it has become nowadays. Today people are preoccupied with making money and career so much that they often do not have time for their families. In fact, modern people usually live not with each other but next to each other. The conditions of life are definitely much better now but it can be questioned whether the quality of life is really better. It is a big question mark, and a subject of much debate in intellectual circles whether the modern man has socially and genetically improved over the ancient man. Quite recently a new book, “Civilized to Death: What was Lost on the Way to Modernity” by Christopher Ryan has proved to be a blockbuster and the New York Times bestseller in which he explores the ways in which “progress” has perverted the way we live: how we eat, learn, feel, work, communicate, and die. ‘Civilized to Death’ counters the idea that progress is inherently good, arguing that the “progress” defining our age is analogous to an advancing disease. People living ‘civilized lives’ according to him, are less happy than hunter-gatherers, generally speaking. Change is inevitable, while progress is not Prehistoric life, Ryan argues, was not without serious dangers and disadvantages. Many babies died in infancy. A broken bone, infected wound, snakebite, or difficult pregnancy could be life-threatening. But ultimately, these pre-civilized dangers were not more murderous than modern scourges, such as car accidents, cancers, cardiovascular disease, and a technologically prolonged dying process? Ryan makes the claim that we should start looking backwards to find our way into a better future. Progress, according to him, is the basic illusion of our age. Despite the technological marvels of our age-or perhaps because of them-these are dark days of our life. It appears that “Everything is amazing, but nobody is happy.” Even for the most fortunate among us, material abundance comes at a very high price. Facebook is a hollow replacement for face time. We produce more food than ever, but hunger and malnutrition are the norms in most of the world. Despair darkens our lives and there are more cases of depression and suicide. A third of all American children are obese or seriously overweight, and fifty four million of them are pre-diabetic. Ryan debunks the modern myth of “Narrative of Perpetual Progress” and poses the question, ‘Is civilization a net gain for individual human beings’? Two more authors, Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs, and Steel” and Craig Dilworth’s “The Ecological Predicament of Humankind”has expressed similar views in their highly acclaimed books. Ryan’s thesis rests on the assumption that the lives of our hunter/gatherer forbears were not as nasty, brutish, or short as the proponents of the myth of progress would have us believe. However, it appears that their lifestyles were not as idyllic, peaceful, and sustainable as the author claims.But according to him they lived in greater trust, cooperation, and generosity. On the other hand, civilized people are conditioned not to trust each other, to lead their lives in cut-throat competition with others, to engage themselves in mad race for more and more acquisition of wealth at the cost of their domestic peace. According to him, for well over 95 percent of the time that our species has existed we’ve lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers moving about in small bands of 150 people or fewer. These bands were more egalitarian, mobile, social, and generous. Power was fluid rather than hierarchical, based more on social value than status and property. Women were given similar opportunities as men. Ryan has very unjustly criticized Steven Pinker’s characterization of violence in prehistoric societies. Pinker is the most eminent cognitive psychologist of our time who in his famous book, “The Better Angels of our Nature” proved on the basis of scientific evidence that violence in human societies has, in general, declined with time, and that there is general improvementof human condition over recent history. The main thesis of Christopher Ryan’s book is a counter argument to what the author calls “the narrative of perpetual progress” (NPP). He says that the ancient men who lived in pre-agricultural times had common traits like egalitarianism, mobility and gratitude. He proceeds to point out how these traits are the polar opposite to what we find today in city dweller societies. He concludes that Civilization is like a zoo where the trapped animals live miserable existences filled with depression, anxiety, frustration and boredom. The limitation of Ryan’s thesis is that his point of reference is remote past of hunter-gatherers of pre-agriculture society when men were more at peace with nature and lived in small bands of less than 150 people. Thus they had more homogeneity, unity and co-operation to live a life of peace and harmony. But after the advent of agriculture, their complexion too expanded to allow competition, and mutual rivalry. His view of our prehistoric past is overly rosy; while he ignores that the ancient society was also consumed with war-making. People living ‘civilized lives’ according to him, are less happy than hunter-gatherers, generally speaking.Change is inevitable, while progress is not. Deep down we all know there is something wrong with civilization.In this context, books like “Sapiens” by Yuval Noah or Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Gems, and Steel” areworth reading if one is wondering what is wrong with the world. There are numerous researches both for and against past and present which vary from country to country. However in America, the percentage of people showing discontentment with the present is greater than those favouring the past. The writer is a former member of the Provincial Civil Service, and an author of Moments in Silence