Silly myopic point of view? Ha, ok.
Let’s wait for more ruled out goals after 2 minutes or until this magical improvement that keeps being mentioned happens and we’ll go from there.
To me it comes down to whether you think attempting to reduce "error" in officiating is something worth pursuing or not. At the moment there are two separate challenges. What the technology is capable of, and how that technology is being used. There is no reason to believe that both of these things cannot be improved (although that doesn't mean that they WILL be improved).
Currently there's a focus on a few occasions where a goal has been disallowed. But this ignores scenarios where a ref would have blown the whistle but instead can let the play finish if he's not certain. When a linesman THINKS that the player is offside but rather than call it allows play to continue. The resulting goal may or may not be allowed, but at least it won't be disallowed because of an incorrect offside call (in theory).
And as technology improves, some of these things can be automated.
I think there are a number of challenges that VAR faces. Not least of which is that referees are incentivised to make non-calls and let the system sort it out afterwards, but personally I feel like the challenges are ones that can overcome, and I believe that trying to move towards a higher percentage of right calls is the right decision.
This requires you to think of VAR as being another step in the journey, not the solution to get to 100%. I've heard about inconsistencies (why used here and not there?) but those are arguments around the system being a solution 100% of the time, rather than an improvement in scenarios where it's used.
Just my 2 cents.