And it also depends on the bad things that are coming, and what new things are going to come.
You are making an ethical argument based on utility, those two are not the best in combinations like that, the ethical argument should be made on an ethical foundation, not on the temporary outcome.
It's interesting how one of the most obvious problem spaces, the one of ethical reasoning is one that is least amendable to pure logic without adding a very large dose of humanity.
Example: killing is bad. But killing to save someone from endless misery (called Euthanasia) can be a good thing. But it still requires - where I live - two doctors to come to the conclusion that someone is beyond medical help and suffering needlessly. And then there needs to be a clear declaration on the capability of the person making the request that they are able to make such a request in the first place.
Ethics isn't simple, even in 'simple' cases.
I am not in a position to decide to stop technological progress. So I am choosing control what I can, which is my attitude.
It will be painful for some folks to transition to doing something else for sure.
I know you are just using random numbers but 10 million people die per year.
The benefit would outweigh the cost.