seriously though why did we even bother industrializing if we weren't going to share in the gains that it made??

Panel 1 is a depiction of Neanderthals in the Shanidar Cave, in particular the "Shanidar 1" specimen, which showed a large number of old injuries and disabilities in the individual. The fact that they had lived for so long showed that the Neanderthal community cared for their members even when they were no longer "useful" physically to society.
It's kind of hard to imagine going back and showing the Shanidar Neanderthals all the gains we've made as a society to produce enough food for everyone, and yet people still go hungry. Then again, imagine showing him Nintendo Switch. I bet he'd love Nintendo Switch, so it's really a wash.

"on second thought, the entire history of philosophy is stupid."

As for myself, what causes the most happiness is being rude to customers.

A lot of words come to us from ancient Greek schools of philosophy (stoic, cynic, skeptic, etc). None of them are is far off from their original definition as "epicurean", which seems to sort of mean rich people who indulge in luxury and pleasure. Epicurus believed the road to happiness was more about restricting your desires, living in simple moderation, and having good friendships. This nerd on YouTube explains it pretty well, if you are interested in more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVpDOfTHLKg

The fourth little piggy built his out of leftist infighting, and the wolf was finally defeated.

One way you can know for SURE that you are dealing with a skeptic is if they think you don't know something that for sure you know, on account of the fact that you are you, and therefore have unique access to the truth.

Academic Skepticism was a school of ancient Greek philosophy that believe all things were inapprehensible, and criticized the dogmas of other schools of thought, such as the Stoics, for believing that they could come to truth by the senses or other means. They thought that judgment should always be suspended at least a little.
The comic is describing something called the Paradox of Dogma, which says that if you actually achieve true 100% knowledge of something, it can never be undo, because you would logically be required to discard all evidence against it as misleading. Take something that we believe we know 100%, that 1 does not equal 2. Below we see a demonstration that 1 DOES equal 2:

x = y
x^2 = xy
x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2
(x - y)(x + y) = y(x - y)
(x - y)(x + y)/(x - y) = y(x - y)/(x - y)
x + y = y
y + y = y
2y = y
2 = 1

Now, even if we can't spot the flaw in this argument, we basically know it is misleading because we just know that 1 does not equal 2. Something must be wrong with it, so we just discard it (the flaw is that it divides by zero sneakily). Does this mean we discard all evidence forever though? What if there were proofs that no one could find the flaw in? Is our certainty infinite? A lot of people might say yes.
Take an empirical example though. Say we know with 100% certain that there is no tiger in the room. Using the same reasoning, we would have to discard any evidence in the same way. Even if a god damn tiger showed up, seemingly. This one seems more wrong.

Seriously though, the fact that they had to go get the "real" Excalibur from the Lady in the Lake means that the Sword in the Stone was a sort of magician's trick set up by Merlin to put his puppet on the throne, right?