It probably is a null question in the first place, 'technology' isn't even entirely determined by humans, and attaching moral valence to abstract concepts seems philosophically iffy anyways.

For example, the terms 'Orbital-mechanics-optimism' or 'Orbital-mechanics-pessimism' would sound ridiculous, at most it can be said that certain groups are optimistic or pessimistic about asteroids and comets hitting the Earth, or space probes being sped up using certain manoeuvres, etc...

Are humans more content with life?

Something like two billion people have been lifted out of abject poverty in the last 25 years. That’s the direct result of technology.

It’s a little bit ridiculous to bring up social media discontent in the same breath. These problems are not remotely the same.

It’s not popular to note that the world on the whole is much better off.

Let's see how civilization deals with climate change before the jury on that is out. It might be better off, but is is sustainably better off?

Personally, I don't think it's looking good right now.

It's not. Oil rich countries like Russia and the US have all to win from global warming. Russia is expected to become the biggest grain producer in the world if the planet gets hotter. A lot of their territory will get unfrozen in the process. Why do you think Russia's big oil oligarchs have sponsored so much anti-climate propaganda. They get rich in the process and Russia becomes a bigger pawn on the global economy market. Damn those African and Middle East countries that get roasted in the process. They're basically losing competitors on the oil market.

So technology is solving problems that technology (in the broad sense) caused? Poverty isn’t an inherent property of the universe.

I’m not anti-technology by the way. It’s undoubtedly reduced human suffering by a large amount. I just think that the story is a lot more nuanced.