It's a good list of seemingly new technologies but again, just about everything on the list, with possible exception of the materials (Kevlar/ carbon fiber and aerogel), have been around since at least the 60's and probably longer (electromagnets, faster computers, radar and radio) and are re-applications of existing technology, new uses or new combinations of existing technology. I do think that there have been some improvements in manufacturing techniques that have made it possible to produce this stuff in larger quantities or of better quality, (and explains the emergence of new materials like Kevlar and aerogel as well, for that mater), so I'm not saying there have been no advances at all. Just nothing really NEW. I think the last really NEW breakthrough was the transistor.
But you are definitely on to something when you point out that this tech is primarily military in origin (and application). For me, this goes to the heart of the original question of why we never went back to the moon, and why there have been no real technological advances since then.
A you said, I suppose it is a mater of perceptions. I guess it always is. But what I see when I look at our advances is a massive proliferation of "new" technologies that do very little to fundamentally improve the lives of average people. The opposite, in fact, seems to be taking place. Instead of making us more independent, more secure and empowered, we have become even more distracted and entrenched in a dependency on forces beyond our control for our well being, all the while believing that we are advancing by leaps and bounds because we have more opportunities for lightening fast communications (with very little to communicate), and a bazilion options to watch the same repeated crap on TV. In the mean time, half the world continues to starve (and its getting steadily worse), we still crap poison into the air and our water supply by the metric ton, and we have a thousand, new, advanced ways to kill each other, all of which obviously require us to spend even more money to defend our selves.
I believe we never went back to the Moon because it would have required us to overcome some serious technological hurdles in propulsion, energy, medicine and life sciences. And that would be a problem, because there is no money in actually solving problems. There is, however, a butt load of money in creating them, or leaving them unsolved, or having a monopoly on the only existing solutions. Solving the above problems might make energy and food cheap, lead to cures for illnesses rather than treatments for symptoms, and empower individuals instead of keeping them dependant on the entrenched power structures who have a very definite interest in staying on top. It would be Bad For The Economy, in other words.
Relying on the military to generate technology, on the other hand, does not have this unpleasant side effect.
I seem to have misplaced my reality.