Technology will be the foundation for our extinction

Although Pro has forfeited this round due to time, I will say this. There are three facts Pro presented in Round 1. I cannot refute them as facts, but I can explain why they do NOT imply they we will go extinct. I list them here. 1. Jaw size is decreasing due to technology. 2. Natural speed and strength has become weaker due to technology. 3. Concentration of innovative people is getting smaller. However, I think that fact #2 is the only one of the three that has strong implications for our extinction. But I will address this later. A smaller jaw may or may not impact our lives so much, especially when considering our species as a whole. Actually, about 5 years ago, a study showed that human jaws are surprisingly strong [1]. I think our inability to chew well will not be a factor for our extinction. I managed to find a source that talks to the issue of fewer innovators in this world [2]. Because of the Internet, basically, this world apparently doesn't need as many innovators to get by. Although less people may be taking the reins of innovation into their own hands, this does not mean that humans will lose the skills needed survive. According to some experts [3], creativity is innate and never lost. I think that when push comes to shove, humans will apply their creativity toward innovation when we really need to. Only the fact that "natural speed and strength has become weaker" make a strong point for Pro's case. However, despite this trend, I think we can all just look around at the people we come across from day to day, and arrive at the conclusion that there are still many physically fit humans in the world. And I believe that there will always be a lot of people in the world that remain very fit. If no one else, they will likely survive certain apocalyptic conditions, and they can repopulate the world with more humans that are physically fit enough to survive. I think extinction is avoidable in this respect. The last point I would like to make transcends my previous arguments. I think that it is highly speculative to make the claim that technology will be the foundation of our extinction. I can be speculative too. A very large asteroid rams into the Earth and kills every living thing on it. Our technology will have played no part in this extinction. And there are many more ways in which humans could go extinct. There are many listed on Wikipedia [4]. Some of them are caused by certain technologies, such as nuclear and biological warfare, scientific accidents, and human-caused global warming. But there are also many that don't require technology to play a part: pandemics, geological and cosmological disasters (large asteroid collision), natural global warming (brightening of Sun), extraterrestrial invasion. To sum up, I think it is unfair and unnecessary to put technology on the spot like this. Technology does not have to play a role in our extinction; there are many non-technological alternatives. And even where Pro explains the few scenarios where technology does play a role, I have countered by saying it does not likely bring us to the point of extinction. And there are in fact many scenarios where our technology can save us from the disasters. We could divert incoming asteroids, we can treat diseases, we could colonize other planets to evade global warming, we can fight against the alien invaders, and so on. Thank you. I wish Pro the best, and I sincerely hope that he comes back for the next round. References 1. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org... 2. http://edge.org... 3. http://www.livescience.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...