If someone had asked that question a century or so ago, in most places in the world there would have been one of two answers. In the western hemisphere, or in those areas dominated by western hemisphere culture, the answer most predominantly would have been, “Of course.” And in the remainder of the world, the answer would most likely been, I suspect, a variation on “Has it changed?”
The problem with trying to answer that question today is defining what one means by “better.” If we’re talking about general health, better nutrition, less deadly and widespread violence, then, in general, the world is a better place, that is, if you’re not in Somalia, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, parts of Africa… and similar locales. But other aspects of “better” aren’t so clear.
More people can theoretically read, if one defines reading as the ability to decipher the meaning of symbols in print… but, at least in the United States, based on what I and all too many others have seen in higher education, high level comprehending literacy and the ability to concentrate on written material has declined even as technical computer skills have increased. The retained knowledge database of most individuals has declined, most likely because any fact is easily found through smartphones or computers. Better or worse? That depends on the definition… and the priorities behind the definition.
There are certainly more nations where citizens can vote, and according to various foundations, in general there’s more freedom, but given the political structures in many countries, that “freedom” often means little real choice, which means that matters may be “better” politically, but not nearly so much better as the Pollyannas claim.
In the high-tech western nations, child labor is rare, and air and water pollution is far less than it was a century ago…but in all too much of the world, those conditions are likely worse. Whether matters are better depends on where you are… and how high – or low – your income is.
The problem with deciding whether the world is a better or worse place is that most of us decide based on where we live, and no one place is representative of the world. More troubling than that is the fact that most of those who can make their views known about the state of the world are those who are anything but representative, because in a media intensive world, the vast majority of those who can even participate are the comparatively more affluent and advantaged. This isn’t anything new; it goes back as far as the invention of writing because, then, only the advantaged could write [and even the slaves who served as scribes were more advantaged than most others].
In the end, it’s a good idea to remember that “better” is a comparative, and that it all depends on what is being compared by whom… and for what reason.