The need of a new Humanism.

The scientific revolution finds its historic place between the sixteenth and seventeenth century, and will be followed by the "Age of Enlightenment" - the eighteenth - when the scientific knowledge is finally consecrated. Today we struggle to represent how intricate and arduous must have been the path of ideas that led to the primacy of Sciene - in its modern meaning - on all the superstitions, occultisms, ermetisms, alchemy and magic beliefs of the Middle Ages.
We also know that we must add the obscurantist attitude and open hostility of the Catholic Church to all these -isms, which often degenerated into open and arbitrary violence that will never be sufficiently condemned.
I think, sometimes, that an opposite but equally degenerate situation became popular in our time: a blind trust in any information that is simply surrounded by an aura of scientific.
The rigor of the scientific method has said slowly against an ancient priestly conception of knowledge, and this has undoubtedly been one of the main achievements in human history.
Today, however, sometimes I think that faith in magic and the supernatural, which mankind has successfully strained to release, has been replaced by an equally fideistic credit to any assertion that can boast a relationship with science, albeit indirect.
The role of the distortion made by mass media is probably a remarkable one.
I have had a scientific education, then certainly I am not going to condemn scientific methods or undermine the achievements. However I often think that the ideal of "progress", and "scientific progress" in particular, must not lead to a society totally devoted to the achievement of such "progress" as if those achievements are the true nature of being human.
I believe today that there is a need for a new Humanism, bringing man back at the centre of society and replacing the faith in the technical and financial development with the faith in man, the search for progress in the quest for happiness and a worthy human condition. Science should always be instrumental to this condition. The ideal of "progress", with its obvious declinations of "development" (scientific, economic, etc.) and "growth" must be reviewed in the light of a new centrality of man.

An ugualitarian society: utopia?

Yes.
Every time a human society left a power position unoccupied, that position has been filled by some entity or person almost immediately. It looks like any human society self-organizes to fill the power lack. Jacobinism first and Communism later have made equality a revolutionary message that has deeply transformed their relevant societies, but the inequality, the injustice, the differences have taken punctually place in new organizations, transformed only at their surface level to reflect the new features of renewed society. These revolutions have transformed the society to re-establish old social networks still characterized by the presence of "hub" of various weights. A "hub" is still a center of power.
Then the centers of power can not remain uninhabited, because the society itself prevents the lack of power to persist. We should not be surprised to think of society as an organisation having its own awareness: any superior body has mechanisms that fix situations highly unfavourable for its survival. There are hundreds of examples one can draw from the living world. Dismantled a pre-existing "hub" due to some revolution, a new "hub" appears to re-interpret the role of the previous one. Indeed, it is likely that the new hub was already existing, and that the revolution is the manifestation of the struggle between the newcomer and the pre-existing one, between the "subversive" and "conservative".
The question then becomes independent of the nature of man, and its virtues and weaknesses: the true terms of the problem are to search in complex systems, "living" systems, adaptive systems, the populations of cooprating individuals. Those mechanisms could be common to many classes of these systems, perhaps there even exist universal characteristics, which human societies can never escape even they will want to.
If this is true, as I think, then a society in which all individuals are equal is a pure utopia, and the state of total equality of members is devoid of any utility. it would be rather harmful and is not desirable. While it is desirable to fully understand these mechanisms, to transfer this knowledge in political systems, so that they fit the "structural" requirements of human societies to the benefit of prosperity and welfare of individuals.
.