There is a formula for the environmental impact of humans. It is: I=PAT (impact equals population times activity times technology). Technology is a wild card in that some forms are more harmful than others. Non-human life forms don't have technology (to our degree) so they are limited by what nature puts on them. I saw a mathematical demonstration on a TED talk and it spoke volumes to me. The 'j' curve (exponential growth) chart has an uppermost limit. One can get around this limit by branching off of the main curve and starting a new curve. This branch comes about due to technology. Technology makes it possible for more to get by on less (imagine life without the computer). Unfortunately, most of the time it takes a war to obtain the technological branch. That branch also has an upper limit so technology must come faster and faster and the upper limits come closer and closer. Perhaps the ultimate limit will replace us with Artificial Intelligence and humans will be superfluous.

I think that our technology is progressing so fast that our culture is unable to keep up with it and out culture and individuals can't keep up.

For most of our evolution things changed very slowly.

I'm not a Luddite, but I do think that many peopel have troiuble coping with rapid changes.

I think publicity and marketing is what made everything wrong with our society today, and technology give them the tool to now aim at you with publicity the way an attack drone would do a surgical strike...

and of course the internet is a great tool, but use the wrong way, humans will always use shortcuts, it's in our nature, so when the younger generation look for an answer , they take the information without asking themselves, is what i'm reading logical, do i agree? the art of critical thinking is getting lost

of course the internet is full of disinformation, but worst , all the good stuff is lost in a sea of useless comment and opinion (like this one )

i think it's cool, anyone can say whatever they want on the internet, but i do think not everyone is fit to have a forum ( <-- im not sure if im using the right word here )

I am a union activist. I work in the auto industry for the last 30 years. Technology takes away jobs. So people will no longer be able to buy anything

Divergence in our spiecies is afoot.

Singularity: making 'AI systems robust and beneficial' aka safe and secure. This open letter is just the intro, the meat and potatoes is it's Research Priorities link. The Short-Term Research Priorities, particularly legal and ethical, are interesting but more so are the Long-Term Research Priorities...
"If an AI system is selecting the actions that best allow it to complete a given task, then avoiding conditions that prevent the system from continuing to pursue the task is a natural subgoal [54, 10] (and conversely, seeking unconstrained situations is sometimes a useful heuristic [94]). This could become problematic, however, if we wish to repurpose the system, to deactivate it, or to significantly alter its decision-making process; such a system would rationally avoid these changes. Systems that do not exhibit these behaviors have been termed corrigible systems [79], and both theoretical and practical work in this area appears tractable and useful. For example, it may be possible to design utility functions or decision processes so that a system will not try to avoid being shut down or repurposed [79], and theoretical frameworks could be developed to better understand the space of potential systems that avoid undesirable behaviors [37, 39, 38]... Finally, research on the possibility of superintelligent machines or rapid, sustained self-improvement ("intelligence explosion" ) has been highlighted by past and current projects on the future of AI as potentially valuable to the project of maintaining reliable control in the long term. The AAAI 2008{09 Presidential Panel on Long-Term AI Futures' \Subgroup on Pace, Concerns, and Control" stated that, 'There was overall skepticism about the prospect of an intelligence explosion... Nevertheless, there was a shared sense that additional research would be valuable on methods for understanding and verifying the range of behaviors of complex computational systems to minimize unexpected outcomes.'"
[futureoflife.org]

Which technologies? There are millions of different technologies? Your question is too broad to respond to.

We are not using the technology at our disposal as we should be. Should be free of fossil fuel long ago. The powers that be holding us back for their profits.Socialized medicine is long over do and they keep cures and prevention's for themselves.

I think people are more unhappy as things become increasingly instant. When there's no waiting, no anticipation, the reward center in our brain is activated on a whim and I think that's detrimental to longterm satisfaction. It's like a junky getting a fix, but then needing another and another and another, with greater frequency and larger doses.

I also see communication skills waning significantly, with an increasing number of people entering the workforce with an inability to convey their thoughts or to write anything coherent.

Though not directly related to technological advancements, the obsession with STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) curricula seems to be unbalanced. I think we need people with those skills, certainly, who also value the arts and humanities. To be well educated requires that one have cross-field understanding of their studies.

The knowledge behind technology is neutral, however the way that that knowledge is turned into technology can be beneficial or harmful depending on the application and also the intent of the developers of the technology and also the downstream applications of the technology that the developers may not have even imagined. The precautionary principal is not applied often enough, with companies rushing to take new products to market without due care and attention to possible long term harm. Considering the differences in life expectencies of developed societies and underdeveloped ones, the net effect would seem positive. All that being taken into consideration the net effects on the planet may not be so benign.