Nice strawman. If I had been romanticising the past it would be a very good rebuttal. But since I didn't and in fact said nothing whatsoever remotely related to anything you wrote, it's nothing but a strawman fallacy.

And even if I had, your argument would not be  proper rebuttal - since even significant advancements don't come without downsides, and recognizing those downsides is not dismissing the advances - it is, in fact, a crucial requirement to maximizing the value of said advances. 
I didn't say life was better before the industrial revolution - I did point out that some, very specific, things about life was better. Those things could be better now as well. The advances you point out were not relevant to those changes, were not brought about by those changes and neither would nor should be sacrifices to undo those negative changes.

We work too much. We  eat bad food, and that's why our teeth rot and our ancestor's didn't, and the advances we make accrue at the top.