Emergence and other features prove that a reductionist approach with the Standard Model as its foundation does not work.
Quantum mechanics is not a general framework, quantum mechanics is just a kind of mechanics. And quantum field theories are not build over quantum mechanics. In fact, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are two disjoint theories as Dirac correctly mentioned.
Elementary particles are not quantum fields. There are misguided attempts to interpret particles as excitations of associated fields, but this is physically meaningless. First, those excitations do not correspond to real particles but to unphysical bare particles. Second, fields are unobservable by definition, what we really measure in experiments are particles. Third, those fields are based in approximations like models of infinite chains of harmonic oscillators.
Wave-particle duality is a misnomer based in a misunderstanding about quantum theory. Particles always behave as particles. That wave-like phenomena refers to the collective behavior of ensembles of particles.
Electrons and anti-electrons are not localized "disturbances" or "bundles" in the electron field. Even ignoring that the Standard model deals only with unphysical bare particles, those "disturbances" cannot be localized in the model, because "x" and "t" in the Standard Model are dummy parameters not related to physical space and time coordinates.
"Because of the well-known incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity, we simply do not know how to satisfactorily describe
gravity as a quantum field." We know how to describe gravity as a quantum field, as a spin-2 field, in the quantum field theory of gravity. The problem is on that people that pretends to quantize General Relativity. That people is trying to quantize geometry.
Of course, the Standard Model is not fundamental, but not only because of the large number of constituents. Considering the "Super Model" as a "Theory of Everything" would be so incorrect like the past half dozen of occasions that physicists believed they had explained everything or were close to explain everything.
There are good reasons why chemistry is not simply called "molecular physics" and they are not historical: e.g., nuclear chemistry and supramolecular chemistry deal with something more than just molecules. The claim "chemistry should be nothing more than electromagnetism and quantum mechanics applied to protons, neutrons and electrons" is so wrong like when Dirac pretended that the "whole of chemistry [is] thus completely known".
Biology is not applied chemistry, but that does not mean that we have to appeal to the anthropic 'principle' to explain the origin of life. The 'principle' is a mere tautology, which does not allow us to explain anything or to predict anything that we did not already know.
Contrary to what a reductionist as Steven Weinberg claims, thermodynamics is not deduced from statistical mechanics alone. Statistical mechanics requires of a previous knowledge of thermodynamics principles and laws, and that is why some scholars prefer the term statistical thermodynamics to refer to this fusion of disciplines.
Weinberg himself tried to deduce the second law of thermodynamics (in the form of H-theorem) from "the level of the elementary particles": he claims that the second law is a consequence of unitarity; he could not be more wrong! Weinberg even pretends that his H-theorem is more fundamental than the theorems "derived in statistical mechanics textbooks", because textbooks use the "Born approximation", whereas he does not. What the reductionist does not mention is that textbooks often deal with condensed matter situations, where the scattering approach that he uses is invalid, because interactions are persistent.
Finally, add my vote "no" to the poll of if consciousness is more fundamental than space/time/matter. Consciousness is an emergent property of matter.