...just imagine if we could control these amazing advancements in technology and direct them toward a superior social goal, rather than toward greedy selfishness, to which they are currently being put to use. Kyle, what you would be controlling would not be the advancements... after all, they don't grow on trees. You would be controlling people. You would be controlling inventors, engineers, managers, factory workers, accountants, investors, and all the many, many people who work in supportive industries. Controling people is another way of saying people will not be free, that they must take directions from some elite, or some tyrant.
But there is yet another problem. History has tens of thousands of years without the growth of technolgy. And there is a reason for that. The reason is that without the institution of property rights as a kind of boundary for human behaviors, we would not form marketplaces, be able to raise capital, determine prices, mitigate risk, or any of the other many, many tasks that must happen before large scale technology becomes possible. Capitalism is really nothing more than the protection of property rights so that no one may steal from another. With that kind of freedom people will take risks, make trades, invest time and money, and a system grows in which technology is the natural outcome. I'm imagining this fellow who takes his knife and slices open the goose that was laying golden eggs. What great prosperity he envisioned once he was in charge of the golden eggs instead of waiting for that silly goose to lay them!
However, the worst problem with your approach is on a moral level. If one brings reason to attempting to determine what would be best for man, they don't end up with systems where some men are in charge and others become serfs. Reason tells us that a good morality is one where all men are treated equally. If one has a right, so do all. And man would be the measure of value. Crowds, mobs, populations... all of these are just collections of individuals, and just as no one man would have more or better rights than another, so no group of men would have more or better rights than any individual. I know that people are tempted to say that the individual must be sacrificed for the good of the group or collective, but that is the morality of the lynch mob, of the gang, of the tyrant.
If selfishness is contrained so that it may not include using force, or fraud, or theft, then it will not harm anyone but the person himself. And that is freedom. If he will benefit himself by making others happy enough to pay him for his product or service, that is a free trade, and if that is the system it is capitalism - the most moral system every invented and the only system that arises out of man's nature and the system that has lifted more of the worlds population out of poverty, disease, and starvation.
By what right does Kyle Jacob Biodrowski tell a nation what light bulb they can or cannot use? And if you don't have such a right, then no one else does either. We all have the right to oppose the initiation of force, or the use of fraud or theft, but no more.