Does modern technology always improve the quality of people's lives?

Does modern technology always improve the quality of people's lives?

This question is quite evil but it above came out in this year's General Paper AO Levels. I think this is extremely well-packaged - candidates can't fail this badly but they will be hard pressed to do well. How would I answer it?

This question needs to be analysed in several parts:

1. Modern technology - Not technological advances but merely modern technology. What is modern? Is the heart-lung machine used for heart transplants modern technology or is it a form of technological advancement?

2. Quality of life - what constitutes quality of life? In the past, before the concept of a global village, is living happily in your small little village lacking in "quality"? Now that we all dwell in residental apartments (or the metaphorical cages), what is "quality"?

3. Improvements - to claim that there is an improvement, there must be some agreed baseline. What is this baseline? Who decides how high or low the baseline must be?

4. Comparability - to claim that modern technology do not always improve the quality of life, the chosen modern technology must both improve and deteriorate quality of life, such as internet and email (information accessibility vs information overload, addiction), technology to harness nuclear energy (Diagnostic radiology vs Chernobyl vs North Korea's recent test), life sustenance systems (discuss the living dead), technology that enables genetic engineering (defect prevention vs designer babies, genetically modified food - disease resistance vs rapid growth), transportation (accessibility and expansion vs pollution). Also magnificent technology that are inherently adverse to human quality of life, e.g. intercontinental ballistic missiles.

This is my essay plan. Will I choose this question? Probably not. I'm not technologically inclined, however tempting and interesting the question is.