Drunken Philosophy

Welcome to Drunken Philosophy a causal social and discussion club.
Optional Topic for this meeting:
Technological Primitivism: Are We Solving the Fermi Paradox the Hard Way?
This is kind of a weird topic for me to write about because I have always been interested and fascinated by science and technology. It has always been my favorite subject. I majored in Biology in college and I have worked professionally as a software engineer for over a decade. But lately I have been exploring this idea of technological primitivism, and it's raising some uncomfortable questions about the path we're on.

Think about this comparison—Homo erectus survived for nearly 2 million years using stone tools and fire. Modern humans have existed for only about 200,000 years, and our technological explosion has happened mostly in the last few centuries. Will we even come close to matching their track record?
And it's not just about nuclear weapons or climate change. Look at history: early civilizations like those in Mesopotamia used irrigation to create massive agricultural surpluses, built great cities, and seemed unstoppable. Then they collapsed when salt buildup from their irrigation systems poisoned their cropland. Do you think James Watt was considering global warming when he perfected the steam engine in 1769? Of course not. But here we are.
I think there are really three levels of technological primitivism to consider:
Personal Level: "I don't want to use this technology." Maybe you refuse smartphones or social media.
Community Level: "We shouldn't use this technology." Think of the Amish choosing to limit certain technologies for their communities.
Species Level: "Humanity shouldn't develop this technology at all." This is the most extreme position—arguing that some technologies are too dangerous for any human society.
Questions for Discussion:

1. Could technological self-destruction be the real answer to "Where is everybody?" in the universe?
2. How should we evaluate whether a new technology is worth the risk? What criteria should we use?
3. Which level of technological primitivism makes the most sense to you—personal, community, or species-wide restrictions?
4. Do you think the inventors of major technologies (steam engine, nuclear fission, the internet) had any obligation to consider long-term consequences?
5. Are we repeating the irrigation/salt cycle on a global scale with other technologies?
6. Is there a way to get the benefits of advanced technology without the existential risks, or are they inevitably linked?
7. If you could uninvent one technology to protect humanity's long-term survival, what would it be?