Sure that might be true. Seems like just a symptom of success tho. At some point you start to run out of lives to save. For example, today more people die of obesity than starvation. So agricultural advancements just will not save as many lives as 50 years ago cuz there are not as many starving people that need saving.

If a society with horrible living conditions like most of the world in the 1900s gets tech, the period where most lives are saved will eventually pass as that tech succeeds in improving living conditions. If we were constantly saving millions or billions of lives with new tech, we have a problem. Where are all these extra people in peril coming from?

> The problem I was posing was not how fast tech progresses, it was how much impact it has on society.

You really think things like Amazon deliveries (powered by amazing logistics not possible without computerization) did not have a profound impact on society?

This is why i think while asking question we need to be to the point and not add our other assumptions. Assumptions can be added as comments and they can make threads explaining only that assumption. A few better writers can judge the main question and can respond to all points in detail and sidelining all assumptions or side questions. But merging questions and assumptions might confuse many experts and they end up skipping the discussion.

You have to be young to think this... We're innovating at an incredible rate, in every industry across the board. Massive social changes, influenced by technology are happening every decade.