This is a little bit disingenuous. I can certainly see the point that all of this separation is unnecessary on a typical modern desktop system, but several of the paths you listed in support of your argument are not actually specified by the FHS, nor do they even make sense.
Of the paths you mentioned, there is no such thing as:
/usr/share/bin
/usr/share/local/bin
/usr/local/share/bin
/usr/local/share/lib
/usr/share/lib
/opt/bin
All the paths that involve `share` are for non-executable data, so `bin` and `lib` subdirectories of these don't make sense. That's not to categorically say that there isn't any OS that provides them anyway--I've seen plenty of Linux distros with disorganized file systems--but that's a problem with the distro, not the FHS as a whole.
The `/opt` hierarchy is pretty much the wild west, I'll give you that. It's basically like `Program Files` on Windows; packages get an entire hierarchy to themselves. Most of the software I've seen that installs to `/opt` is Linux ports of Windows software, where the authors were either ignorant of the Unix way of organizing things, or simply didn't want to bother conforming with the norms of a different platform.
Incidentally, one of the reasons I prefer Arch Linux over some other distros is that the organization of the file system follows the standard and actually makes sense. Things are always where I expect them to be.
Your overall point may have some merit, but it feels a little like you're reaching for support for your position by making up wacky, confusing paths that don't actually exist.