In a really twisted way, that's what makes Agent Smith's speech in The Matrix so interesting. The one about how humanity is "a virus" destroying the world. At the time the movie came out, that whole spiel felt like overblown, James Bond villain-esque speechifying. These days it's almost starting to sound like a halfway reasonable analogy.

While I disagree that we've failed "to improve the human condition," I do think that, as a species, we're prone to taking the short view. We do what's expedient for us, and only for us, and only in the immediate timespan. We're fantastically bad about planning for the future. Throughout history this has actually benefitted us somehow; being creatures of convenience, fear, etc., has forced us to innovate. Now it's a question of whether we can innovate more quickly than we can fuck things up.

"We are an animal with better cognitive abilities. Let's hope that we can progress beyond this stage fast enough..."

I'm strangely optimistic. Not happy about the current situation, and pessimistic about the environment over the next 50-100 years. But I have hope that we'll figure this out. In a weird way, I have hope that this will finally be the undeniable, forced confrontation with our waste and excesses that will demand global cooperation and an end to petty, short-term bullshit. A big step forward for our species, forced upon us when our back's against the wall.

But all of us have been in situations where we say to ourselves: "this is event E going to force us to confront with X, Y, Z" only to see E go by and people exhibiting cognitive dissonance. It's not hard to imagine very significant transformations of our environment with people still refusing to accept responsibility and adjust our course of action. Dr. Harari makes the argument that our lives as hunters-gatherers was in many respects much better than our lives post the agricultural revolution. For us in the middle/upper class of the world's population this is maybe untrue but we aren't representative of the entire world's population.

It may have been true that our lives as hunter-gatherers were better in many respects. But the problem is that civilization inevitably defeated hunting and gathering. And it always tends to, throughout the course of human history. Major technological advancement seems inevitably to outcompete the alternatives. While that advancement may or may not produce better outcomes, it always wins out. (For poignant examples, see: "Guns, Germs & Steel," "Why the West Rules (For Now)," and other large-scale historical analyses of this topic).

This doesn't mean Dr. Harari's point is invalid, but it may mean that the point is moot in praxis. We can't return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, so the only practical alternative is to continue on the technology treadmill, even if it diminishes quality of life in various ways. Over the last 30,000+ years, we don't seem to have found a way around this issue.