There are many mechanisms to collectively decide things, so you aren't even close about that (Democracy, the market, representative government at every level, the United Nations, proxy votes for corporations, school boards, boards of governors, juries, HOAs, ballot initiatives and referendums, elections generally, zoning commissions, family meetings, 4 friends debating where to get dinner, really far too many to list here, if anything almost all decisions of any importance are made via some mechanism to collectively decide things).

There isn't a way to collectively decide things with absolute authority, but that is why things don't suck worse in general. If we make collective decisions we could force people to do some things which are more optimal to our goals. However, that assumes that we universally agree on what the goals are (not even close) and that the decisions won't actually be worse for the chosen goals (sometimes they will be far worse) and that the decision making process will never be irreversibly hijacked by some group for their own benefit (it absolutely will be). So you are not just wrong about this, your premise is incorrect and your conclusion does not follow from that premise even if it were.

Where did I say we would or could decide against it collectively? Individual people can decide for themselves not to engage with harmful technologies in the future, just as many do today with cell phones, computers, television, etc. Not everything has to be done by governments.