> A lot of problems do. But sometimes the problem is people related. You can work around those problems with technology but you can't fix them.

It depends a lot on what is encompassed in the considered definition of technology. Education and language can certainly be taken as technologies, under certain perspectives at least. And addressing individual behaviors with undesirable social consequences is something that definitely can be solved with appropriate educational "technologies".

In my current perspective, the most weighted factor between a technology and an innate individual trait is how transferable it is.

>We're not going to turn into Luddites and competition continuously drives us to do better.

It all depends on which values we endorse and thus how we deem something "better". On global scale, there was probably never so much passive aggressive competition within humankind (we also never been so numerous to be fair), and its results on global biosphere are to say the least completely disastrous.

>But it can be very effective sometimes.

Sure but working on improving effectiveness means nothing. If we try to enhance efficiency of gaz chambers, we are clearly bringing only more evil to the world. Efficacy is meaningless without a kind and generous purpose.

I could almost say "science sans conscience n’est que ruine de l’âme", but Rabelais actually wasn’t willing to say what it is generally thought it means nowadays. https://theconversation.com/science-sans-conscience-nest-que...