I agree with the main thrust of this essay, but there are nuances & counter-examples that make me more optimistic: For example, a nuance: More people are giving up television, magazines & newspapers than ever before - perhaps we (as humans) have a finite need of/tolerance for distractions, and are satisfying this need/reaching this tolerance more efficiently via the internet now? A counter-example (on the increase in 'hardness' of society's addictions): The Finns (and others) originally did not have practical access to alcohol, so they took locally available hallucinogens (and saw santa!). Then vodka, and later beer became affordable, so they now largely drink these instead - ie. the move is not inevitably one-way (see also various temperance movements). Also Hogarth chronicled Britain's descent into gin excess, but although this seemed overwhelming and permanent at the time, it was relatively brief.

In short: humans have always adapted better than predicted to change - so far.