All of human history is littered with human beings dying of the things you claim would make us extinct, 500 years ago in the year 1500 there were approximately half a billion humans living on the planet, now there are over 8 billion humans living on Earth and that number is not going down, do you understand these very basic figures?
Humans have always been susceptible to the things you are inferring will lead to their doom and despite that humanity is more prevalent than it has ever been, this is not an image of a species in danger of extinction. Humanity didn't suddenly increase it's population 400% in the span of one human lifetime because it is declining. If that were even close to being true we'd see some evidence of mass death that could lead to their extinction but even if we suppose to existence of such a cause of death we need to rule out what it can't be.
Things that cannot lead to the death of the human race are natural disasters, epidemics, illnesses, even the loss of items from the food chain will not lead to the end of humanity or the end of human civilization. The entire reason I keep stating the obvious to you is that you are overlooking it for the sake of arguing a nothing point. You intend for what? Apathetic resignation that somehow the human race is doomed to fail? It may well be, but it won't be within our lifetimes, assuming entropy is inevitable then yes the Heat Death of the Universe will lead to human extinction.
Everything else though is entirely manageable and easily resolvable. To ensure Humanity's survival all you need is the basic minimum, which modern technologies allow us to meet incredibly easily, you cannot grow everything in a vertical farm without natural sunlight true but you can grow anything you realistically require to sustain human life indefinitely within one.
And questioning their sustainability is a complete joke of an argument and one that is easily dispelled. Vertical underground farming is the most sustainable form of agriculture that exists it doesn't have fundamental shortcomings that regular farming does:
[*]With rows of in-demand veg stacked on top of each other, less space is used to grow more food.
[*]The crops are grown in an isolated environment, where factors can be manipulated. Fruit and vegetables grown outdoors are impacted by the weather and their environment, but vertical farms can grow all year round, uninterrupted by external threats.
[*]Furthermore, in traditional farms, crops are eaten by insects and animals, forcing some damaged crops to be disposed of. In vertical farms, they are protected from this. Water and nutrients can also be measured out exactly, so nothing is wasted.
[*]Exotic fruit and vegetables can be grown anywhere, instead of being farmed in suitable climates and then transported to their customers.
So that makes them immune to things such as famine, blight, plagues of insects, dust storms, external agents that can affect and influence massive spaces open to the elements but not easily controlled regulated environments where everything can be measured and ran to exacting standards that would impossible to enact in non-closed environments.
Now as to my original statements, I am not failing to see the forest for the trees, quite the opposite in fact, I am ignoring every individual tree to show you simply what is and what was. People who lived in hunter gatherer societies 20,000 years ago did not have a quality of life that would be considered in anyway superior to a human being who lived during the industrial revolution in Europe. The people who lived through the original industrial revolution would not have lived a life of considerable quality but undoubtedly their existence would be preferable over living as a nomadic forager or hunter, being entirely at the mercy of the elements and the immediately available resources in the area being the only thing you could rely on. Thanks to agriculture, cities and civilizations grew. Crops and animals could now be farmed to meet more people's needs and that in turn led to advances all across society allowing people to have permanent domiciles, allowing them the opportunity to teach and develop communicational standards such as writing and language.
These advantages have never stopped developing. Thus someone living in 2022 will by every measurable standard on average live a superior quality of life than what would have been possible for the mass majority of humans living only one lifespan prior that time. 80 years ago Europe was embroiled in a conflict that would see over 20,000.000 deaths on the continent alone, such a loss of life on such scale had never occurred before in all of recorded human history. In fact so many people died in the space of mere 7 year conflict that it would outweigh the total number of living humans on the planet before modern agriculture took hold a mere 10,000 years ago. Despite that however humanity is now in a better place than it has ever been, we have access to advances technology and medicine that would have been impossible to explain to someone born in the era of World War 2. The horrors of that period of human history all that we did all the lives that were lost that was perhaps our lowest point as a species and you wish to infer that somehow the challenges of today are more stark? No. We have conflict yes, we have societal issues and our technology is limited it cannot solve every issue.
That though is not the argument I am making, I will never claim that the world of 2022 is without fault but it is still the greatest era of all our history to live in. By every reasonable metric that one's quality of life can be measured every century in the past 1000 years would be preferable to the one that preceded it. Living in 1500 would be slightly preferable than living in 1400, living in the 1600's would be slightly more preferable than living in the 1500's living in latter half of the 1700's would be more preferable to living in the former. Living in the last quarter of the 1800's would be preferable to living in the first three. Living in the last 20 years of the 20th century would be preferable to living in the other 80. The rate of change is increasing but undeniable, there is no living human being that would if given all the data conclude that their chances of living a decent life would be worse now than they were during the Great Depression of the 1920's or the great wars of the 20th century, we are having this discussion separated by thousands of miles of land sea and air, while we have it I am wearing fabrics that didn't even exist 30 years ago, I am eating food that would have been impossible to grow en masse or to distribute at low cost a century before, I am living in a home powered by a renewable source of energy that is heated, cooled, maintained and contains technology that has undoubtedly provided me with a quality life far superior to any that could have been enjoyed by any living human on the entire planet, regardless of race, creed, wealth or societal status a century before me and I am far from the outlier in this situation.
All of this to say that life in 2022 may not be perfect but it is in every reasonable measure better than what came before it, you have a lower chance of being illiterate and a higher chance of receiving an education, you have a lower chance of dying many preventable illnesses and ailments that killed millions of your ancestors, even in abject poverty you can easily access things like the Internet or modern medicine that simply did not exist in previous eras.
https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of ... n-5-charts
https://sustainabilitymag.com/diversity ... ustainable
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/02/worl ... the%20goal.
With all that said I'd say it is very likely that someone living one human lifespan from now will on average have a higher quality of life than someone alive now. It is merely following the data.