I think the framing of this using “technical debt” as an analogy is unnecessary. There is nothing novel about the idea that harmful traditions hold people back from their potential - this is a basic tenet of modernism. In fact this is such a broad sentiment you can also associate it with the Enlightenment or many other past movements to “rationalize” or “advance” society.

The three “propositions” are not insightful - of course the path forward should be balancing cultural preservation and doing what is needed to stop global crises. The problem is how to actually accomplish that, and who compromises on what. Framing it as a high school debate between three vague options is a waste of time.

In fact, the more I read this article the more I think it was written at least in part by an LLM asked to list pros/cons. I wish people concerned about societal problems would try to learn more about history and study problems that have actionable answers rather than try to “solve” hypothetical scenarios from first principles. You will gain a lot more insight!