This article, while interesting, is incredibly presumptive and totally non-scientific. As such, I consider it pablum.

Surely no one culture is universally "better" than another. Pick some metric(s), some cultures will be better, some worse.

What's left unstated and undefended in this article is the metric for comparing the "goodness" of cultures. With that, at least we would have some quantitative things to compare -- then one could respectfully disagree on the metric, or offer alternate evidence for calculating the metric, or offer other metrics to consider.