Has anyone else ever wondered...

[drh3lln0]

This poses a very interesting set of postulations for the practicing evolutionary biologist. Do technological advancements, while intended to ensure the progress and proliferation of a species, actually pose more of a threat to existence? Sure you can acquire advanced medical practices to elongate life and one can also formulate high-yield breeding techniques, but when you have a high percentage of your population doing scientific research instead of fornicating, that decreases the odds of the species survival. Think about it this way: Where I live, there is a population of stray cats. These cats have no level of higher thinking, no medicinal practices and no technological advancements. However, they thrive because all of their being is brought about by instinct and their drive to survive and propagate. Now apply this idea to every other species, ie insects, rodents, humanoids....whatever. This, of course, can be counter argued with the use of fertility drugs or in vitro fertilisation, but from my personal observations (at least with our species) it appears to me that the less educated and technology advanced portions of our population are the ones doing the most breeding and therefore maintaining our rate of proliferation and existence.