Is technology now the only way humans can "evolve?"?

Question

We try to preserve the living units by prolonging life, curing disease, etc. This, however, does not allow for nature to weed out that which cannot adapt.

Have sciences and religions led us to a form of self-destruction on a massive scale?

I recently finished watching Texhnolyze and was intrigued by its premises, though I can't say they're anything new. Are we heading toward a twilight era? Is technology the only way out?

I'm aware that nature can throw anything at us, but our technology is constantly improving. One day, we may be stronger than nature on Earth, though that would lead to problems in itself. I'm not asking if we're going to become invincible, I'm asking if we're reaching a point where technological improvement is the only way we have to adapt. If one of us were to be suddenly placed in the wild, what is the probability of survival? Of course, one of the strongest features of mankind is its ability to implement tools and work together, but nevertheless, we who have had technology all of our lives are not suited to the wild.

In response to the criticism of the "self-destruction theory," I say that there is too much inter-breeding of the "strong" and "weak" for two groups to necessarily emerge. And as our technology improves, so will our ability to "fix" things, so maybe the weak group will simply utilize that to keep up with the strong.

The problem with saying that technological evolution is just as good as an alternative is that there is the potential for it to fail. This exists in biological scenarios as well, but I think you can understand what I mean. Furthermore - and I know this is cliché - what about the possibility of technology OVERPOWERING us? The human race could be wiped out and taken over by machines. The possibility seems silly and overdone to many, but that's mainly because it has such potential.

Answer 1

One rarely comes across such a great question!! It is pleasure to answer such intelligent questions.

Even natural evolution is a process where the normal or the usual is deviated from for the sake of enhanced efficiency in order to survive better. Technology is our additional tool for the same purpose. I therefore believe that technology would neither lead to destruction nor to selective division; it would instead make us evolve faster and stronger than ever before. It thus means that we are prolonging as well as bettering our chances of survival through use of technology. That we were able to develop technology was in the first place a step evolution for us, giving us a leap jump ahead in the race for survival.

Our destruction, if it comes, would rather be caused by our inability to collaborate properly due to our decaying moral standards. In other words, it would be our lack of wisdom rather than progress in technology that would be more likely to bring the curtain down.

Answer 2

The only problem with the self-destruction theory is that "healthy" people continue to reproduce. At most what may develop is two different classes of humans, the physically strong and the physically weak. If the trend begins that some people are being chemically supported there will be a greater value placed on those who are naturally healthy. Therefore, just like in nature, those will be the most desired to breed with. So while the weak will continue to breed, it will most likely be with other weaklings, and the strong will continue to breed with the strong and create a stronger race. So the answer will be division not destruction.

Answer 3

You have already stated the three possibilities. We can be reduced to a primitive stage from a natural or human-made catastrophe and then natural selection will start working again on the new environment. We can evolve through technology and manipulation of both our genes and of the environment.
We can be led to a society of two castes where the poor may find themselves under survival pressure and the rich evolve technologically. Given these options one has to hope for the second. However, it is a difficult one and requires serious choices we don't seem able to make.

Answer 4

In terms of physical & biological evolution. I believe technology has become part of our evolution in the latter years. Unatural..Yes. Evolution, nonetheless.

Natural selection dictates. Whoever is the strongest will survive & evolve. Regardless of the process.

Are we heading into a twilight era? I guess so. It's scary that we're in the age that we humans can actually disrupt & alternate the natural process. As we are doing right now.

Answer 5

No, technology is not the only way humans have to evolve. No matter how good our medicines and science get, nature can always throw something stronger at us, the ones resistant to a disease for example, will live on and pass their beneficial traits to their offspring and so on. Technology is great and all, but we belong to the earth and it controls us, not the other way around.

Answer 6

Most species have a general longevity time frame. We sometimes decry the extinction of different animals, but there are species dieing off constantly (and there always have been).
Nature is still weeding in less fortunate areas of the world, so maybe those areas will be where the next great civilization will materialize.

Answer 7

Technocracy -- Corrosion of Conformity Killing technologies -- Voivod Ctrl-Alt-Delete -- Circle of ineffective toddlers electric Eye -- Judas Priest Cathode Ray Sunshine -- darkish Tranquillity Rockit' -- Herbie Hancock

Answer 8

We have chosen to evolve by technology time after time and it has become a sort of snowball effect and most people think its the best way and it works so the majority dose not feel like bothering with alternatives.

Answer 9

Evolving technology is important, but you might be interested in exploring other angles - Ken Wilbur's 'evolving holons' comes to mind, and J. C. Pearce's "Biology of Transcendence." There are other types of evolution going on that may be more significant for our ultimate survival.

Answer 10

biological evolution arise from a need to adapt to one's enviroment. but since we are able to use technology to satisfy our needs, biological evolution isn't necessary. why do we need to evolve? humans haven't even begun to tap into their potential.