So it seems your stance boils down to, "modern society is less evil because I say it's less evil". Which is fine, but it makes it difficult to take your dismissal of opposing modern viewpoints seriously.
i mean, you'd have to outline an opposing modern viewpoint and try to explain why it's better. i would think that it would almost go without saying that one's own moral framework is the framework one considers most moral. what possible justification could a person have for adhering to a moral framework that they themselves consider less moral than an opposing one?
I've been outlining a moral framework that implies modern society is similarly evil with the discussion on government leaders sacrificing soldiers for meaningless reasons.
Both sacrifices in war and sacrifices in rituals and are done in the name of an abstract entity, both are well meaning, both promise glory and an afterlife, both end up with humans dead, and in both cases mistakes made by the leaders are absolved by their constituents.
Assuming all of the above are agreed upon, the logical differences that have been presented are
A) The ritual aspect and
B) We say modern morals are better so needless deaths in war are better than needless deaths in a ceremony
And you went with b, but I think you could do better.