We are alive today due to the ecology of our speciation, having been more or less sustained. And thanks to reindeer. But our current 'life' is seriously problematic due to our micro environment engineering tech. We are using up all the fresh water and groundwater, and toxifying fresh and salt water, and air, and soil (ghpyhosate, etc). We are the victims of our own success at the top of the food chain. We are breaking the food chain.

From an anthropological perspective, I would suggest it is behavioral flexibility and cooperation that make humans uniquely "successful" in the Darwinian sense of having a big population of large-sized animal in almost every part of the globe. We are all biologically the same, but it is our behavioral strategies that vary across the diverse environments where humans live. That flexibility appears to exist in all humans, and its particular expressions are influenced by environmental parameters. I am also an archeologist, but I don't think technology drives these variable adaptations. The labor and social strategies humans employ in different environments is what allowed this behavioral flexibility to develop without biological speciation. Humans also are the most cooperative of the great apes. All human societies have forms of labor cooperation, food sharing, behaviors that promotes pro-sociability, extensive recognition of biological and facultative kinship that define interaction dynamics, that drive our social organization, subsistence strategies, and back-up alternatives that cope with environmental uncertainty. Technology is just part of the solutions designed by our cooperative feeding strategies and division of labor among members of any society. The sexual division of labor is a good example. In most hunter-gatherer societies, women collect high predictability resources that provide more reliable foods, often in significantly greater quantities than those men provide. Men perform most hunting among hunters & gatherers not because of strength or danger, but because animal pursuit has higher energetic expenditure costs (longer travel distances than gathering), less predictable returns, and not infrequent 0 returns. Women's reproductive cycles can be interrupted from high energy expenditures that don't compensate those costs with consistent food returns (amenorrhea in high performance women athletes in our industrialized societies). That would have a negative outcome through natural selection. Women's reproductive output is limited by the number of offspring that can be raised to reproductive age in their lifetime (~8 in most traditional societies with breast feeding). Assuring sufficient food for those offspring is critical to their reproductive success, so women focus on more reliable food returns for their efforts. Men's can expend energy for low returns (or less frequent bonanzas) without compromising their capability to reproduce. Additionally, both men and women support the offspring of closely related kin through cooperation and sharing, which can augment their reproductive success. For a relevant example from the Kalimantan region, Punan women do not collect plant foods because they invented baskets, but because the economics of gathering and then processing plant products into more nutritious foods provides predictable returns on their labor investments. Punan men don't hunt because they invented blowguns (for arboreal game) and lances (often attached to the distal end of blowguns as a multi-functional hunting tool that keeps the hunter away from the armaments of scary, but less commonly encountered, game such as wild pigs), but to augment the primary food base of plant foods with risky returns (meaning lower predictability) from highly nutritious protein and fat. Hunter-gatherer men can only afford this specialized strategy because women provide a reliable source of daily food and both sexes cooperate in sharing foods. Humans live in social groups that spreads out the acquisition risks among multiple folks focusing on particular seasonal resources and extends the opportunities for offsetting risk and garnering cooperative obligations through sharing.

Good morning, I find this a very interesting point of view, however I am inclined to the idea that true human evolution is in the confrontation of nature to survive, and from there with the classic proposal of Morgan, however, when the human being faces nature he develops his intellect, now I think of a whole, that is, the cosmos, and everything related to outer space, which acts directly on all forms of life on the planet, which puts us in a situation of evolutionary necessity through the intellect and reason, which until now finds a way to transcend itself evolutionarily with what is a product of science and technology, as artificiality, in response to the dialectical relationship between nature and culture itself, in a way of the human being as part of nature itself and its intellect in constant transformation in its action with nature itself and what comes from outer space, affecting life itself, that is, it is an adaptive possibility to the actions of living beings on the planet, and not to leave the negative possibility of destruction, but rather to think about the perpetuation of an evolved form of the human species by generating artificially organic life. Thank you

Evolution is an organic outcome of natural selection that has no particular trajectory. Human behavior can be acted on by natural selection. However, it is a fallacy to think we can anticipate how this goal-less process may affect which organisms will have more surviving offspring than others and which current and future morphologies or behaviors will be acted on by natural selection. We can't think our way into being "more suited" to future selection pressures. Human "intellect" is just part of our behavior. It is no more omniscient than the perceptual capabilities of planarian flatworms, just a different way of experiencing and reacting to the perceptions of the external world.