The Water-Babies (1863) by Charles Kingsley

We do still have a copy of this particular book, which I read as a child. I did not know that it was written as part satire in support of Charles Darwin's 'The Origin of Species'. More recently, 'The Water-Babies' has fallen out of favour, Sydney, because of its prejudices (common in Victorian England) against Irish, Jews, Americans and the poor!

Wikipedia - The Water-Babies, A Fairy Tale for a Land Baby

Has it? "One's"? Not this one; I wasn't alive in Kingsley's time anyway and nor were any other members here, so none of our lives could have so "deteriorated" since then. Even if you meant to write that people's family lives today are less good than they were during his time; you didn't live during that time and so can only go by hearsay and other data rather than your own experience and, in any case, such a claim is far too much of a generalisation to have more than the thinnest shred of validity, especially since you haven't experienced anyone else's lives today and cannot know of all of them!

OK, let's abandon the shred (although I think that "shreddable" requires as many "d"s as Mr Carter's forename needs "t"s) and state instead that it has no validity.

Whichever pronoun is used, the fact remains that no member here (or indeed any other human) was alive in the time of Kingsley, so no one is in any position to account for how his/her or inddeed anyone else's family life has deteriorated since then; it is also the case that the implied notion that everyone's family life is worse today than people's family lives were in Kingsley's time is an absurd an unfounded generalisation made all the more so by the fact that some people's family lives today are in any case better than others'.

I see no problem with the use of the second person singular provided that it is to make a valid point but, since I wrote
"you didn't live during that time and so can only go by hearsay and other data rather than your own experience and, in any case, such a claim is far too much of a generalisation to have more than the thinnest shred of validity, especially since you haven't experienced anyone else's lives today and cannot know of all of them!"
I would have no problem in amending it to
"no member here lived during that time and so any comment on family life in those days is by definition dependent upon hearsay and other received opinion rather than reflective of the personal experiences of the commentator and, in any case, such a claim is far too much of a generalisation to have any validity, especially since no one has experienced everyone else's lives today and so cannot be acquainted with all of them well enough to pass such judgement on them!"
In presuming that this might be deemed preferable, I must note that it makes no difference whatsoever to the point that I sought to make,upon which I note with interest that no comment has been passed.

True, but that's not the same as saying that their lives have gotten worse...

...or her...

I must now ask you, as I have asked certain others before - who is this "we"?...

1) You appear to be under the false impression that any "obligation" such as you mention "must" be conferred (upon me in this instance) by someone else; I used the word because I felt obliged in my own right to ask the question (which, incidentally, was not being asked of you) - in other words, I conferred such obligation upon myself.

2) Hardly "barbaric" but, in this, you are indeed correct, although perhaps "whom do these "we" comprise?" might have been better; as to the remainder of your sentence, I was not aware that the use of the first person plural by another member identified said "we" as comprising (all) members of any particular kind of "class"; moreover, said member gave no hint that he was referring thereby to those who "have received a foundation in the rules of elementary English grammar"l, not least in that he made no reference to that subject. Perhaps he might care to confirm whether such people were/are indeed the ones to which he sought to refer when using that particular pronoun but, until and unless he does so, it would, I believe, be unwise at the very least to make any such assumption on his behalf. As to "universal logic", there appears so far to be about as much of that in the use of that pronoun as there is in your bizarre yet wearisomely predictable insertion of a hyphen between "to" and "day" in "today".

The question - subject to some amendment such you you identify in 2) - therefore stands, although I am not necessarily implying that it "must" be answered; that will be up to the member of whom it was asked.