On lead recycling: I was mostly just repeating USGS's values. I hadn't looked to see their methodology, though that's a fair point. The fact remains that even high rates of recoverability attenuate quickly through multiple generations. Efficiency has limits.

On the ontology: that's an ontology of technological mechanisms.

It is not a reclassification of technological fields or domains. And it really is not a dis of technology, it's an attempt to clearly define what it is that technology does, and how. A question that's otherwise often very frustratingly avoided.

Economics treats "technology" simply as a synonym for "efficiency" or some "productivity multiplier".

There are both a theory of technology and a philosophy of technology, but neither really addresses this point. (Both tend to focus far more on social interactions and elements, which has been argued as a consequence of the more-socially-oriented philosophers and theorists not being comfortable with the, erm, technical aspects of technology.

So, to the ontology.

Your basic tools are often largely power transmission and conversion systems. "Simple machines" was much of what I had in mind in that category, though it includes more: levers, wedges, ramps, screws, gears, pulleys. Rope (tension) and stone (compression) both have transmission components. (Combine them, as a fibre-composite material: adobe-straw bricks, fibreglass, carbon-fibre, reinforced concrete, and you end up with a material with force-management properties.)

It's not that I don't consider tools. It's that tools themselves are not independent of the ontology, which concerns mechanisms and dynamics. Tools are not dynamics, they are implements embodying or achieving one or more dynamics. (I'd argue always at least two: material and, typically, power transmission or measurement, though usually also process knowledge, possibly others.)

Your simple tools -- hammers, saws, drills, planes, chisels, lathes, etc., are largely specific devices for converting one form of power or motion to some useful effect.

Electric devices are similar: generators convert motion to electricity, motors convert electricity to motion. PV converts light to electricity, LEDs convert electricity to light. Microphones convert audio energy to electrical signals, speakers convert electrical energy to audio waves.

Then there are furnaces, smelters, ovens, kilns, etc., measurement and monitoring tools. Maths if necessary to model your design. Etc., etc.

Most power transmission operates through thermal, kinetic, or electromagnetic forces. There are some which might operate through strong or weak nuclear force. Arguments could be made for chemistry as a mechanism, though that decomposes to electromagnetic interactions.

(I belive it's Smil who describes hydraulic accumulators as an early-stage technology and one which still substitutes for electricity in some applications: dentist's offices, auto repair shops, Amish workshops, and through liquid hydraulics in many heavy-lift applications. In the late 19th century there'd been hydraulic distribution networks spanning kilometers in industrial blocks and ports especially. For intermittent high loads they're particularly well-suited.)

So: to build a steam engine, you'd need the raw materials, the know-how, power transmission (rocker beam, flywheel, and gearwork, shaft or belt drives, etc.), and yes, some earlier instances of technological mechanisms implemented in materals suitable as tools: hammers, chisels, drills, lathes, grinders, and the like.

As for the hygiene factors of a steam engine: you have issues with radiating thermal energy, combustion gasses and ash, and the changes that any such machine might have on business, economic, social, and environmental considerations. All of those are emergent or unintended consequences, often not immediately evident. Robert K. Merton's study of latent vs. manifest functions has recently struck me as highly relevant and interesting. In particular, his observation that as tools of understanding, latent functions are far more significant than manifest ones because they are not as apparent. This itself likely has further ... latent ... consequences.

On ignorant rulers as a governance mode: yes, effectively. I'd lump military leadership, governance, business management, courts, ecclesiastical organisation, industrial process controls, robotics, etc., as forms of management. The essential elements are system, state, sensing, decision, action, and feedback. Fundamentally: cybernetics.

There's a wonderful quote from the world of sailing:

"The Art of ship handling involves the effective use of forces under control to overcome the effect of forces not under control."

-- Charles H. Cotter

There's more to it than that, and the quote misses the elements of observation, decision, and action (or implies but doesn't explicitly state them). Still, I think it captures the essence of what I mean by "management".

On the resistances to technological innovations, I'd strongly recommend Bernhard J. Stern's 1937 work of the same title:

https://archive.org/details/technologicaltre1937unitrich/pag...

Which I liked so much I retyped in Markdown, suitable for PDF or ePub via Pandoc:

https://pastebin.com/raw/Bapu75is

Stern, a sociologist, develops a theory of what drives this, which I think you'll find interesting and applicable to recent examples you cite.

Dysfunctional as that response is, it is part of the inherent, and I'd argue default governance mode. Which like many other default modes of behaviour, has to be modified or adapted if you wish to get past it.