Something to think about

[Danton]

What if the evolution of technological, highly intelligent life (us) is, in the long run a maladaptive trait? Could it be that such complex technological systems rapidly put such strains on ecological, social and political systems that these systems spin slowly out of control, leading to the extinction or at least to the end of these civilisations?

[Hoodoo Ulove]

What if the evolution of technological, highly intelligent life (us) is, in the long run a maladaptive trait? Could it be that such complex technological systems rapidly put such strains on ecological, social and political systems that these systems spin slowly out of control, leading to the extinction or at least to the end of these civilisations?Yes, it could be. Maybe tomorrow someone will post on the net how to hack your toaster-oven to make a doomsday device. Someone would surely try it.

[untermensche]

Human intelligence of itself is not maladaptive.

But what may be maladaptive is the products of human intelligence in the hands of some humans.

[fishbulb]

I suspect that self-destruction probably is the fate of human civilzation, if not the human race altogether and, quite possibly, of any technological civilization. Civilization cannot last forever, and of all the possible ends, the most likely scenarios seem to me to be breakdown following self-inflicted environmental collapse, global war, or the development of technology that readily puts enormous destructive power into the hands of individuals. Other possibilities, such as collision with an asteroid or other natural catastrophe, alien invasion or otherwise being destroyed or out-competed by a rival species, death of the Sun, or the end of the Universe, are possible but seem somehow less likely.

[mattikake]

It is typically aggrogant to think that with our level technology we will last... forever. "Surely our civilisation couldn't be destroyed given what we know about the universe?"

The Greeks and Romans almost certainly thought the same. The creation of gods overlooking their righteous existence would be the epitomy of that. Ok, they didn't develop powerful weapons and gave themselves the ability to wipe themselves out, but they proved there are many other factors that can destroy a civilisation. Economic, power struggles, epidemics etc.

A way to look at it is life evolved to create human. Human evolved to create civilisation and that abstract creation must continue to evolve if it is to survive too. How stagnant do you think things would become, civilisationally, if globalisation is allowed to happen completely? Would it take a natural disaster? Afterall, Feudalism was set in stone until the black death changed the value of human labour.

[sweetiepie]

Other possibilities, such as collision with an asteroid or other natural catastrophe, alien invasion or otherwise being destroyed or out-competed by a rival species, death of the Sun, or the end of the Universe, are possible but seem somehow less likely.
That would be because those things operate on a different scale-- like once in one hundred million years. Threats of nuclear war, on the other hand, occur once in every 4 or so years. Pollutino has grown, without stopping, over teh last 500 years. And humans, with our crazy means of travel and central locations, diseases have no problem getting from one corner of the globe to teh other.
Unless we get our butts into space, or genetically engineer some seriously less destructive people, or enslave the world, or some such-- you can count on humans being the primary cause of any great disaster.

Is technology the only thing that could realistcally save us from technology?

[fishbulb]

That would be because those things operate on a different scale-- like once in one hundred million years. Threats of nuclear war, on the other hand, occur once in every 4 or so years. Pollutino has grown, without stopping, over teh last 500 years. And humans, with our crazy means of travel and central locations, diseases have no problem getting from one corner of the globe to teh other.

That's pretty much how I see it too. There is also precedent: we have managed to destroy civilization and render environments inhospitable on a more local level, and we did it with technology far more primitive than what we have today.

Is technology the only thing that could realistcally save us from technology?

In any sufficiently large population of humans, there are at least a few who would end civilization if they could, for various reasons. It seems likely that it is only a matter of time before civilization-destroying technology is used once discovered, and the only way to prevent it would be to find some other technology that would effectively neutralize it before it falls into the hands of someone willing to use it.

We managed to avoid nuclear destruction in the 50 or so years since we first accumulated significant stockpiles of the weapons, but we did come close a few times, and even up into the 1980s, there were military planners in the US and the USSR who seriously considered a nuclear war to be a viable strategic option, and who argued in favour of scenarios that predicted victory at a cost of "only" tens of millions of dead. (They didn't know about nuclear winter.) We aren't quite in the clear yet when it comes to nuclear holocaust, but the real question is what happens when the next iteration of technology allows the same destructive power to be acquired by smaller powers, such as a small rogue nation or a bunch of rapture-ready religious fanatics. When that happens, or survival will depend on finding a way to neutralize the technology before it is used, and then we'll be safe until the next destructive technology comes along. Unfortunately, we have to succeed all the time in order to survive; it would be enough for one doomsday cult to succeed on one occasion. Time is definitely on the side of people who want to destroy the world--however few in number they may be.

[daemonia]

Where does evolution enable us to cope with the technological increases that are occurring at the moment? All the facets that key evolutionary changes have no hope in hell of adapting in time with the greatly increased rate of "advancement" as it currently stands. We are not suited to technology nor the information glut it provides. The essential smartness and intelligence of a human is unchanged (or so i argue), while we have larger numbers and more empirical data to work with resulting in a greater amount of stress and disfunction.
Are we developing towards extinction? Yes.
Extinction is the rule of life on earth. More species have become extinct than survived. Many more. We are likely heading to it... only hope that some genetic offspring (adaptation) manages to do better - whether purely biological or some technological form of life I cannot say.

[Kemono]

What if the evolution of technological, highly intelligent life (us) is, in the long run a maladaptive trait? Could it be that such complex technological systems rapidly put such strains on ecological, social and political systems that these systems spin slowly out of control, leading to the extinction or at least to the end of these civilisations?

It is not maladaptive, because natural selection does not "care" about the survival of the species. Each individual is better off with intelligence than without it if the intelligence level of everyone else is given.

It is like armies. We might be better off if none existed, but each government is better off having an army than not having one.