I'm more on the grounds that 0 + 0 is still 0 and that programming is, generally speaking, lame. Although I can generally agree with you and am a believer that a project with a procedural codebase punctuated here and there with small cases of OO objects and just enough functional constructs where they make sense is a much superior solution, it still strikes me that the reason individually all these paradigms suck is because our computer architectures suck.
We tend to forget how seminal and immature our computer architecture really is, blinded as we are by a false sense of modernity. I have no doubt that there isn't a solution to the problem of code organization and maintenance with this architecture, only rough patches. The escalation of team size and bug count in the software industry over the years as the complexity of software has risen, and how we have grown to become lenient and accepting of that fact, has all the characteristics of a bubble that can't be sustained indefinitely. Eventually within the next 100 years we will come to realize a new computer architecture, either by the constant pressure for processing power or simply because the software requirements have grown so complex that our (already proven) archaic programming models can no longer fit. Then it's a safe bet to expect our first software development revolution.
