What alternative are you suggesting?
Also:
And:
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/mh5/class/econ102/readings/Standard of Living 1800.pdf
Just because there's bad doesn't mean its all bad. Its actually mostly good.
It's worth pointing out that "Our World in Data" is produced by a single guy with a pretty strong agenda, and that graphs like that come with some assumptions and generalizations that I believe are invalid.
The "extreme poverty" stats are distorted because they're almost always based entirely on money flow. That means that in large part they're just measuring the rural-to-urban transition, not people's actual wealth and well-being.
They'll have a family living on a farm in the countryside as living in "extreme poverty" because they have less than $1 cash flow a day, even though they own their land, produce their own food, and generally have access to healthy air, water, etc.
Now have that same family lose their land to agribusiness and get forced to move into an urban slum. They live in a 8 foot by 8 foot room that they don't even own, they work far longer hours under far more stress, their air quality is shyt, their water is unclean, for food they're now mostly eating processed corporate crap. But since they're living on wages their daily income is $3/day so they're marked as "not extreme poverty" even though quality of life has cratered.
We keep monetizing tons of things that everyone used to take for granted, but the mere monetization of life doesn't mean an improvement in life.