Ever heard the saying "hindsight is always 20/20?" Well it's true, when you look back and can see the chain of events that occurred it is pretty easy to see what caused things to happen. However, we aren't blessed with having hindsight until after the fact. You can't know what the ramifications of an action will be until you have taken the action. You can try and determine likely scenarios, but you won't always be correct. But, I believe in the majority of cases actions (at least in recent years) are generally made to better existence in general. For example, when it comes to saving the environment. Many nations have "endangered species" acts which protect certain animals under the law, in addition most nations frown on actions such as poaching. The slaughter and sale of such animals could potentially bring considerable income to a nation that changed its stance on such issues, but in the interest of ethics and morality, most nations have not. There are also things like protected land, for example in the US there is ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) which is protected land, basically no one can touch it, and yes I know the status of this area is currently in question, but I feel like ignoring that fact for now. Civilized nations also have laws that promote peace, not violence. You are jailed for murder, not for being a Good Samaritan. Perhaps it's rather ethnocentric of me, but I believe the majority of the problems in the world are influenced by the major nations of the world, but primarily the actual problems are caused by the undeveloped nations. It isn't the US that is chopping down the rain forests, it is the indigenous peoples of that area, it isn't the US that is drilling everywhere for oil, it is organizations like OPEC. They may be influenced by money, but my point is that it is not the nations we would considered civilized that actually perform these acts. The civilized nations realized that the world is flawed and instead of just throwing up their hands and walking away, they strive to correct the problems. Having brought up the issue of oil, there are things like hydrogen fuel cells which from everything I've read run 99.99% clean, and since they are powered by water, we pretty much have as much as we could possibly ever need.
But as for technology, yes I do believe that at least in some respects it has made the world a better place. Consider medical science. Seeing as how you brought up Small Pox, I'll mention the fact that medical science has made it so Small Pox is no longer a threat. I personally would have been dead at the age of 8 if it weren't for medicine, medical science in my opinion has certainly done good for society as a whole, the only thing I could possibly bring up with medicine that would be negative would perhaps be methods of testing (animal testing), and issues such as abortion and assisted suicide. But, those aren't the major purpose for medicine, "do no harm" are very familiar words to most doctors. Other forms of technology also tie into this. To use a hypothetical scenario, assume mass media and mass transit do not exist. A scientist in China cures cancer. It may take months if not years for this message to spread all over the world, and it would be nearly impossible for treatment to reach the underdeveloped corners of the world. But with mass communications and transit, within seconds of this cure being produced, every major scientific organization in the world would know about it. Groups like the WHO would help make the treatment available in all parts of the world.
I do not disagree that technology has brought about negative things, but I'd like to think that the majority of people have good intentions for their actions and therefore I believe that the people who create such problems are the minority and all of mankind should not be judged based on them.
One oddity I saw in your comments though; when talking about the computer you say that goverments have a purpose for such things. I would say that in a rather basic sense governments are part of the problem. After all one of the things usually mentioned in Hobbes social contract theory is that goverments were created to protect against other governments. That is to wage war on others who threaten them. Even most sacred texts generally include justification for war, if not outright, then by example, such as in the Bible it says "though shalt not kill" but it also talks about how the Jews obtained their rights through wars that God approved of, there is even a certain passage where God drowns a bunch of Egyptian soldiers. I would contend that goverments are the problem. I'm not suggesting that we should dismantle all governments, more like attempt to improve them. Again it ties into we should except what is "good enough" we should always strive for what is perfect. We may never actually get to the point of a utopian society, but we can at least try. And on that note I've just noticed how much I've actually typed and therefore I think I'll end here
