Yes, society is dependent on machines. But if they suddenly stopped working one day we would not be destroyed.
Just as society adapts - as you say - to integrate new technology into our lives, it would adapt to cope with none of it. Millions would die in the process, yes, but a high mortality rate is not the same as "not surviving".
The only reason there are millions of extra people is because of that technology, so the assumption that a loss of population following the catastrophic failure of said technology is a flawed one.
Bigger populations don't necessarily equal better societies, just as greater technological presence or diversity doesn't make us a more 'survivable' species.
What I'm saying is that yes - a lot of people would die if our technology suddenly failed, but so what? It would be pretty crappy for that generation, sure, but the species would go on (and we would be all the better for it imo).
The very bottom line is that humans are part of myriad systems, and as long as you adopt the point of view that we cannot be separated from every system, you can call humans slaves. Slaves to the land. Slaves to the plough. Slaves to oxygen. Big deal. Why villify a specific thing like technology? It's just a thing. We made it, we learned how to exploit it - we can unmake it and unlearn it just as easily.