Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a theory about stoicism in the past vs. stoicism in the present. Keep in mind that I say this all from a very North American point of view (born in Iran, but grew up in Canada). In the past, there was no guard against disease. If it came, you were done for. There were some limited options available when it came to medicine, but by and large, if you got a disease, that was it. It was out of your hands, and even…
Stoicism addresses deeply rooted human tendencies. I don't think, if we are being honest, we have any more real control. We are less likely to die but we have merely stretched our individual timeline slightly in the scheme of things. It (access to modern medicine) should not change ones philosophy much IMO.
There is value in acceptance but it's for the ones that are better off than others. There's nothing just in death by a preventable disease when a cure is outside if ones ability to obtain it.
Silicon valley stoicism emerged due to people loosing track of their worth, mindlessly running after profit. We should stride for goals (personal and shared), not take solace in a philosophy of existential stagnation.
It's pretty bleak and depressing but IMO it's not ones philosophy that changes, but the interpretation of it and resulting actions that it inspires.
In other words economic prosperity is a variable factor that will influence ones actions no matter what their philosophy is. By changing the variable you will change the product it gives. Dismissing it is ignorant until it's proven that it doesn't influence your sum-of-life-happiness.
Pretty hard to measure given we have 1 playthrough, nevertheless it can still be a factor. Stating otherwise is a matter of opinion about the volatility of influence a given factor has.