I guess I don't want to get into a rabid discussion of this issue, but I will respond to some remarks that have been made. The fact that I am not inclined to think that we are 'better' human beings than 19th C Englishmen certainly does not imply that I think the reverse to be true.
All history is interpretation.
This is a well-established concept with which I'm sure everybody here is already familiar. If you want to assess the substance of human 'progress,' you have to define 'progress' first. Like Russell, I take as a starting point that 'progress' is an ethical matter. Today, at the end of the 20th century, a crucial question before us is whether developments in technology inevitably improve the quality of life. And if not, we must ask how our society can employ some selectivity and restraint, given the enormous capitalistic forces at work.