Can we please not go into ubermensch territory. We (the geeks) also created atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, built electric chairs, designed Auschwitz, and as we speak are hooking together a system of globalised mass surveillance...

And to quote Adorno:

It is by no means clear precisely how the fetishization of technology
establishes itself within the individual psychology of particular people,
or where the threshold lies between a rational relationship to technology
and the overvaluation that finally leads to the point where one who cleverly
devises a train system that brings the victims to Auschwitz as quickly and
smoothly as possible forgets about what happens to them there.

We should not defend our interests by claiming them humanity's saving grace. Making new widgets is fine. Sometimes it's even interesting. But (say) getting everyone in the world on the internet, or running railways to the ends of the Earth, or getting a computer in every home, doesn't automatically make the world better.

humans only chance against hopelessness & despair

Or is everything actually hopeless (in the sense the universe will end one way or the other and humanity has as much chance of finding a solution to that as finding god (though both can be combined, in which case you get Asimov's The Last Question, which would explain its popularity among certain technophiles).

fixing global warming

We can't effectively seed clouds to make it rain. And there's no exit if we (say) overcompensate and create a new slush-ball Earth. And making any other place to live (Mars?) wouldn't be accomplishable until after climate change's worst had already happened on Earth (and that's betting on technology that doesn't exist and that we don't know can exist).

improving democracy

Is technology ideologically neutral? If so, it can equally be employed for negative ends (in the sense of a utility monster, say). If not, technophiles have no defense for their proclivities, and then ideas can be argued to be subject to regulatory control, among other things. And if it is a matter of how it's used, then it's just as easy not to use it all and obtain the same result simpler.

transportation, space travel

Because the universe will not be complete without a McDonalds in Jovian orbit. I doubt this is about saving the human race so much as about saving a certain culture and its associated ideologies.

in america unfortunately we must overstate our voice due to the non-representation of congress, the electoral college and hence the supreme court

The problem with "expert rule" is that it is inherently anti-democratic. Why should I get "your" input if "I'm" the expert? Stalinism, is the perfect example here: Stalin is the expert, he has the answers, anything that conflicts with that must be removed. And it circles round to the very problems that are behind those situations that result in scenarios such as this article describes:

the danger is that its gradual disappearance will create the need for
some new (racist or expert-rule) form of hierarchy, directly founded in
individual qualities, and thus canceling even the “formal” bourgeois equality
and freedom. In short, insofar as the determining factor of social power be
in/exclusion from the privilege set (of access to knowledge, control, etc.),
we can expect an increase in various forms of exclusion, up to downright racism.