I don't think so, though. I think that unless there are limiting factors (no ores or some other necessary component) life would tend toward technology.
Curiosity as an evolutionary trait is quite an advantage, and I would think is necessary for intelligent omnivores. It's what helped us figure out what we could and couldn't eat, and taught us better techniques for living. Curiosity naturally leads to technological developments, I would argue.
All humanoids except our species are extinct, and it's not because we killed them.
It's not? Didn't most of them coexist with us until they didn't?
> life would tend toward technology
Based on what evidence? We only know if it happening once, after a very long delay.
I think it's a natural product of curiosity. And I think that intelligent life would only be so because of curiosity.
You want to figure things out or you're interested in seeing what happens when you fuck around with things.
So I think a technological progression is a natural progression for intelligent life.
Does that make sense? I feel like I'm not explaining myself well.
Lots of animals have been curious for hundreds of millions of years, but technology more advanced than breaking bits off rocks and sticks has only been around a couple thousand years. If you say it's a "natural progression", you also have to say there are serious barriers that most species will never pass.
Okay?
So the notion that "life would tend toward technology", charitably speaking, does not make any useful predictions. Based on all evidence available, including the dearth of extraterrestrial technosignatures, you can't rely on it happening in any particular situation or timeframe. At best it's speculation, more likely it's just false.
Correct, we disagree in what we think.