[RevRal]

I see that you're getting downvotes but I wish to cast my support for your comment. I suggest those interested in the thought process please check out the book What Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly. The book basically says that technological growth is almost independent of human input.

[seanp2k2]

Interesting thought, and I've been there before, but I've also come to think of technology as an extension of humans. As computers are not currently capable of independent thought, they must [generally] be instructed by humans on what to do. We've also laid out their CPUs and GPUs and busses and power circuitry. Their physical evolution is based on the business roadmaps at places like IBM, Intel, AMD, NVidia, Micron, Dell, etc driven by tasks which they can perform to further the economies of humans. Contrast this to animals, where there is a drive for survival and furthering the species. Computers don't have this sense because they don't have life. Technology is impressive, but in terms of what a computer wants, I don't see it as much different from a shovel; it's a tool created and used by humans for the benefit of humans.

[meric]

Inheritance of genes separates life from chemistry.

Inheritance of knowledge separates animals from plants and microorganisms. [1]

Inheritance of capital separates humans from animals. [2]

In the same way DNA is an integral part of life, and in the same way the knowledge to live in a particular environment is an integral part of an animal, technology is an integral part of being human.

Raise a human in the wild among goats without human culture, without human technology. As long as that human is separated from culture and technology, would an alien be able to differentiate the human from animal? [3]

[1] Animal born in captivity can't be released to the wild because they didn't have the opportunity to learn from their wild parents.

[2] Hammer, houses, watches, factories, passed down from generation to generation.

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child