You may have misread something, as my comment is specifically making the point that 1824 was not some status quo start to modern history but actually a bleak minima resulting from the widespread and harsh negative impacts of early industrialization and colonialism.

The "take" is that the article is a bit deceptive in its claims because its measuring progress from a time that -- for much of the world -- was deeply unlike and worse of than times before it.

You may also think that that take is bizarre, but it's a different one than you seemed to have read and responded to.