Transportation and industrial technologies that pollute the environment for example. Basically anything that produces carcinogens by definition causes cancer.
Ok, i see where you are going now. I mentioned Norman Borlaug in my post to @Revoltingest perhaps i should mention Thomas Midgley. He came up with the idea of lead in petrol to reduce knocking. A boon to motorists until quite recently. He is respinsible for millions of deaths and people are still dying from his work. Incidentally he was the guy who also came up with the idea of cfc's as a refidgerent.
It depends on what perspective you look at it from. In terms of quality of life for the average human today then you are certainly right.
It's been pretty terrible for non-human animals though.
Also depends on the degree to which you factor systemic ruin into the equation (nuclear war, massive environmental collapse, etc.). If everyone dies then that's a pretty big disadvantage. Millions of small improvements are more than negated by infinite harm.
From the perspective of 'is it better for me as of today?' pros very much beat the cons. From the perspective of 'has the likelihood of human extinction in the next 10,000 years increased or decreased', it has likely increased significantly.
Can't put the genie back in the bottle anyway, so it doesn't really matter one way or the other: it's just for fun.
Agreed that we are screwing the environment.
Humanity, life itself, is only fleeting in the timescale of the universe. Entropy will see to that, no technology required. If technology is used for the benefit of life it can continue longer than if technology is abused.
And possibly not in a good way
It will need to be a good way