> What alternatives to Technological Humanism are not antidotes?

Sorry I needed to re-read the post to think about your points.

There are alternatives but almost all are unpleasant. There is the
"pharmaceutical society" of Huxley. Possibly humans can be molded into
something resembling worker ants who will accept any degree of
technological dominance and dependency without complaint if mentally
modified. In some parts of the world where 1 in 3 people take a
prescriptions such as Prozac we are probably some of the way there.

There is "ambient domination" of the kind of P.K Dick (Ubik),
D. Potter's Cold Lazarus, or A. Niccol's GATTACA, where technological
dominance has effectively disappeared, leaving a superficially
pleasant and peaceful world, but its effects are soaked into a defeated
"last man" culture of "post-humans".

Or there's endless Soviet style struggle, permanent technological war
against invisible or virtual outside enemies, as in G. Orwell's
Nineteen Eighty-four. N. Klein's idea of "crisis capitalism" outlines
one form of the general case - and if you allow the conspiracy
theorists their way "plandemics" (yes they say that), and even climate
change are a vehicles for such eternal paternalism.

Those are just three off the top of my head. I'm not a sci-fi writer
or "futurologist" (shudder), but I'm sure there's a dozen models for
dystopias in which digital technology plays a major part, drugging,
monitoring and propagandising humankind at behest of the few.

> It sounds like you consider the anxiety of the age a/the major
problem (I agree)

Not so much, I think every age has had its deep anxieties, I grew up
in the cold-war fever of the 80s when we did nuke drills at school and
hid in the basement.

What is uniquely worrying about now is the wilful ignorance and
acceptance. Anxiety is a symptom. What distinguishes anxiety from
fear is that fear is about something, whereas anxiety is diffuse.
People are choosing not to know about their world (retreat into
amusement, comforting fake news etc), and celebrating their ignorance
of technology as a form of magic. Despite doing that we still suffer
the crippling effects of anomie, alienation, disconnection, and so on,
but no longer have somethiing concrete to point to as the source.
Under Marxism it was the Bourgeoisie, but today's "One Percet" don't
cut it, being almost accidental villains/co-victims of invisible
cybernetic currents.

> But is there really only one solution?

No certainly not. But I am foremost a scientist, and came late in life
to social philosophy and psychology, so I favour answers that rely on
human rationality and organisation (I realise that on HN there is huge
cynicism toward that and lots of talk about how "dumb people are" and
"what they really want is", and talk of "sheep following network
effects". I think that kinda goes with an immature (pre-2013)
entrepreneurial mindset.

Given an absence of hope for beneficent corporations or governments
for me the only hope is a future in which people retake technology in
some way. But exactly what that means is still something I am working
out. Whoever solves that will not just improve the world, but get rich
too. So far Gates. Zuckerberg et al have failed, because "scale" is
something they put before purpose.

> there are other possibilities worth discussion.

Please check out digital vegan and humane technology as I'd love to
talk about those other possibilities.