The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Technology will be the foundation for our extinction

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 674 times Debate No: 69554
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I am not arguing about the usefulness of technology and its positive implications in our daily life. I am arguing that Technology has rendered the natural skills and features of a lot of human's useless for example our ever shrinking jaw size because we no longer eat and chew large amounts of food without utensils. Or our natural speed and strength has become weaker over the years because of how heavily technology is used. Also the concentration of innovative people is getting smaller and smaller. Most of us aren't creating technology most of us are users and we will evolve to become users primarily that will only innovate on whats already been innovated. If our elite innovators or our technology ceases to exist the majority of the world would be helpless against apocalyptic conditions or global natural disasters. We wouldn't have the raw skills and instincts to carry on our species as we have adapted to life that deals with these problems for us.


First, I would like to thank Tminusfour20 for posting this debate. I believe it will be an interesting and challenging one.

I will argue that our technology, its effects, and its implications on our lives have better prepared humans for survival for whatever may come. Technology comes in various forms: machines, medicine, communications, computing, etc. For now, these things have made our lives easier, but more importantly, it has allowed us to put more of our thoughts and efforts into tasks that go beyond day-to-day survival. Because of this, we are now more aware than ever of the disasters that threaten human existence. We know quite a lot about how diseases work, and we have developed ways to treat them. We have theorized the different ways that could have caused the dinosaurs to go extinct, and we can learn from them. We track asteroids and calculate our chances of being struck by them, and engineers are developing methods to avoid destruction.

There are many speculations going around about how humans will become extinct, but technology has allowed us to be much more prepared to fight against many of those threats, giving us improved odds at survival.
Debate Round No. 1


Tminusfour20 forfeited this round.


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.

Debate Round No. 2


Tminusfour20 forfeited this round.


I have nothing left to say.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture