When steel shafts came in, the consensus was that they would wreck the old hickory game. And I assume the same was true when the featherie ball was replaced with a hard ball. But golf has survived--and prospered.
I think that a large part of the claims of more distance are hype--longer shafts equal more distance, not necessarily a better shot; stronger lofts on irons makes the player feel better, but it is bogus; Ernie Els with a driver one inch longer than before, and playing on fast courses those two weeks, is said to have found 40 yards, but now his average is back to normal; etc.
But even conceeding that there has been a major change in distance due to technology, I'm not sure I find that to be so terrible. But are the number of rounds played in serious competition--pro and amateur--compared to those played in recreational play? I'm sure quite small. And the technology does not seem to have changed the recreational game that much--at least not for the worse. And certainly not as much as steel and hard balls did many years ago.
I hate to see us turn the game upside down (and I would consider a tournament ball to be such) because a few better conditioned athletes, playing on better conditioned courses, with better instruction, and, yes, with somewhat better equipment, are hitting the ball farther--and scoring a smidge lower--in the few competitive rounds played in this country.