Litvishechossid –
Your asking a very odd question – you seem to have an assumption that there is a preset specific level of technology a society “should” achieve at a certain point- but why should that be the case in the first place?
Technological progress is also not always specifically linear – there have been periods of time when technological advances have been forgotten by generations after the ones that made the advances, there have been countries at one time that were significantly more advanced then the others in the same time.
Furthermore, technology builds on itself. Especially (in my opinion) technologies that facilitate better communication. It’s why in the current time something invented in Japan (for example) can quickly spread around the world, whereas new advances made 400, or 1000, or 10,000 years ago would have taken much longer to spread (assuming they did at all). Inventions like the printing press, the telephone, and the internet; policies like standardized public education and increased admission to higher education, have helped increase the general level of knowledge of a large part of society far more then societies without those technologies or policies had,. With the result that we have now far more competent people working on new technologies then ever before. Furthermore, with the industrial revolution and similar “events,” vaccinations and general lifespan extension (including much reduced infant mortality rates, which is a major factor when looking at average lifespans of then versus now) decreasing the amount of people solely focused on survival or things like food production, there is an exponentially increasing amount of people working on technologies now then there were before.
Technology and advances build on themselves, it’s a large part of why things seem to advance technologically speaking so much faster now then they used to. The exponential growth of the human population, and the increased growth of people who survive infancy/childhood and go on to pursue higher education is a large part of it (as well as an increasing weight being placed on scientific, rational discovery – the peer review system comes to mind).
Also, you mention some examples of how you think technology now is bad and how you could improve it – the problem is, that’s all relative. It’s based on what you know and what you can imagine. Many technologies (for example) from sci fi shows in the 1950s (to name a few: cellphones/smartphones, tablets, bluetooth, video calling) have actually become normative features of every day life now, and as technology increases and time goes on, that pattern will repeat. Technologies we found futuristic just 60 years ago will seem normal and possibly even backwards now, while new ides will keep coming of how things can be better. I don’t imagine any point at which that will stop, when we say “ok, everything we can ever imagine is now existing.” There will always be some way to think of things as being more advanced – and that’s a good thing, because that itself is what leads to advancement.