Suppose you see a trend that's been true for somewhere between 400 and 4 Billion years. Suppose that you are aware that folks have been predicting the demise of the trend for between 250 and 2500 years...and have been consistently (read 100%) wrong. What's the correct response of a rationalist.
Under most circumstances...sane folks believe the trend continues as before, despite doomsaying.
Resource abundance...we have a 500 year history of doomsayers predicting the end of natural resource X...and being wrong on every count, not just in absolute terms, but in relative terms. Every useful non-renewable resource is CHEAPER now than it was either 500 years ago or on discovery. I have to conclude that folks who believe that resources are coming to an end are caught in a logic trap...sounds sensible, but fails to predict a damn thing.
Moral decay...we have a continuous history of 2500 years of folks talking moral decay. Every outcome-based measure of moral state that is has been improving, if not monotonically, for that time period.
Rate of Change ... we have a 2 billion year history, since the dawn of life on earth, where the 2nd derivative (rate of change of rate of change) has been positive, with state changes every N doublings. Most calculations put the next state change sometime in the next 50 years...with rate of change (following constant trends) expected to move economic doubling time from on the order of a couple decades (2% growth = 3.5 decades, 8% growth = <1 decade) to the order of a couple weeks.
Liberty ... liberty appears to be a superior good after some level of income. For all of known history, human beings who have become rich have basically abandoned all pretense at following standard social rules, and spent huge chunks of their wealth preventing normal rules from applying to them. Social constraint and conformity is a poor-people activity, performed painfully, because they are forced to. Rich people, regardless of their deserving-ness (read lottery, accident of birth), simply don't.
Government ... governments universally (over time) seek to expand power over people, and just as universally, in their expanding power, make life worse. The existence of some examples (Singapore, Hong Kong) for some time frames (<50 years) does not disprove a 2500 year hypothesis.
Autocracy ... The more power that is vested in a single individual ... the worse for the citizenry.
Organizations ... The bureaucracy runs all organizations, unless an organization is near failure. Leaders are 90% irrelevant, regardless their formal power.
Feedback is the whole deal ... systems live and die based on how feedback-responsive they are. This is basically true for 2 billion years, from the dawn of life. Better responsiveness to change always wins (+/- 3%).
My claim is very simple...the claims I have above are the default, no-thinking-required basic assumptions and anyone wishing to argue against them has a large burden of proof.