I do not think there is an enormous positive gain. Science progress in my opinion has gone too far in many respects and we should not be able to generate science so easily because we will not have the wisdom to use it. Although I love science, it's use is far too lackadaisical now -- see for example the climate crisis and efficient resource extraction of fossil fuels.
Then we can imagine things like life-extending drugs, immunity from all disease (bad because it implies overpopulation), methods to generate oxygen (bad because it will mean we won't value the natural ecosystem as much), etc.
Smartphones, computer technology (human-isolating and community-destroying), etc. Pretty much all modern inventions are making life worse.
I see all of these negatives, and agree it is clear there is much that is bad in the world (there always has been) and much to be improved (ditto), including new problems created by science, technology, and human greed & selfishness. But I also see many positives and benefits, I see many problems that used to exist and don't anymore, and I see much evidence that we continue on average, to make progress. When I look to the past I do not wish I lived there.
Science have many times saved my friends and families' lives or enabled them to live more fully after an accident or sickness
Science made climate change possible but greed, raw capitalism, etc. put us on the path there. Science makes it possible to find a way out, slow or even reverse it eventually, and mitigate the worst results.
Populations are shrinking in developed countries despite people living longer.
Computers and the internet created and connected many new communities, too. The negative effects are again often the result of unbridled capitalism. Young people especially are fighting back against the negative effects and taking control, building technology to manage those hamrful effects.
etc…
I believe both that:
(a) it is not possible to stop humans acquiring and using knowledge, advancing science, developing technology, and evolving culturally and socially; and
(b) we shouldn't want to, even though it means we will create new problems and lose (or consign to a smaller "museum exhibit" role) some aspects of the culture and societies we have today, because on balance we will solve more and bigger problems than we create and build better and more interesting cultures and societies than those of the past.
It's not without existential risks, but those are overstated or analysed pseudoscientifically at best, by many of those (and certainly the loudest) who worry about them.
I think it was always the case. The wisdom actually comes from mistakes too, not from a priori speculations. Especially as all new solutions/technologies have been criticized and judged as dangerous, frivolous, unnecessary, morally wrong etc. Bikes, cars, street lights,social equality and so long.