I definitely think a case could be made (and in fact it would be my default hypothesis) that the way things have been run since the beginning of time are largely suboptimal, specifically in that they cause vast amounts of unnecessary suffering.
Really? My default assumption is that if something has been around forever it's at least a local optimum, since otherwise it would have been changed a long time ago. Seriously what are the odds that you've noticed an actually improvement that nobody else in it's history has noticed. To quote Chesterton
There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease.
Seriously, the fact that a tradition has survived a long time is evidence that it is doing something right.
It is also the case that almost everyone raised before, say 1900 was malnourished
[citation please]
subject to significant child labor
This is not obviously a bad thing. See this essay by Paul Graham for a good discussion for why our modern school system is arguably worse.
often physical abuse
Are you conflating spanking with abuse here? If so, we really need to taboo the word "abuse".
My default assumption is that if something has been around forever it's at least a local optimum, since otherwise it would have been changed a long time ago.
A local equilibrium is different from a local optimum. It's not that nobody has noticed it, it's that the Nash equilibrium is to worry more about signalling than improving. The traditions are doing something right; they're enforcing a meme which is successful in the ancestral environment. That's just not what I want them to be doing. I can't make a Cadillac a better luxury car, but I can make it...
Topic the First - Asking "Why?"
There is a certain cliche of a young child asking "why?", getting an answer, asking "why?" to that, and so on until the adult finally dismisses them out of frustration. And we all smile and laugh at how ignorant the child is and pat ourselves on the back for being so grown up.
But I don't think this story is very funny. This story, told in countless variations, has the rather repugnant moral that it is rude and childish to ask that most important of questions. "Why?"
So why do parents near-universally admonish their children when they persist with the questions? What is motivating parents all over the world to teach their children not to ask "why?"? Do parents simply not want to admit to their ignorance? I thought so at first, but I suspect it is deeper than that.
It seems more likely to me, that this practice is a defense against acknowledging that one's answers are mysterious. It is easier for a parent to attribute a young child's lack of understanding to a lack of intelligence, than to comprehend that their own answer is a curiosity stopper and not an answer at all.
In essence, children are being trained to accept curiosity-stoppers without hesitation, by being reprimanded for continuing to ask "why?" I find this more than a little alarming; it would seem that for parents in particular, it is especially dangerous not to notice when they're confused.
Topic the Second - The Behavior of Hope
Is tenuous hope more emotionally taxing than certain doom?
I wouldn't think so, but whenever the subject of death comes up (among those who don't believe in an afterlife) I've noticed a very curious pattern.
I have only a guess, but it seems possible that when doom is certain, when there's no escape for you or anyone, it is easier to numb the emotions. Accepting the possibility of escape makes the doom not-certain, which forces fear of the doom to the surface.
Topic the Third - Abuse of the word "Love"
On another site I happened to be perusing, someone posted a bit of a rant about teenagers not knowing the difference between love and lust, to which I gave this response:
* I define "real love" as the state of valuing another's quality of life more than your own quality of life.
Topic the Fourth - A "Good" Parent
Let's take a moment to think about how modern parents are generally expected to treat the subject of their offspring's sexuality. This is one of those things that I firmly believe any good future for humanity will look back on in horror.
With alarming commonality, adults with maturing offspring go out of their way to stunt their children's sociosexual development, due primarily, I think, to a desire to conform to the current societal archetype of Good Parent. Despite ambiguous-at-best psychological evidence, parents fight to keep kids ignorant, unequipped, and chaste due to the social consensus that having sexually active children makes one a Bad Parent.
I would even go so far as to call such deliberate impediment of sociosexual development a form of abuse, despite its extreme prevalence and acceptableness in today's world.