Do you mean what happens if we grow faster than we can adapt to, or that our ability to exploit natural resources can support?
If so, then what happens is pretty clear: population collapse.
But since the last few decades since 19th century, biological evolution of humans still progresses at a rate slower than the change of everything, our economy, lifestyle - from telephone to Radio to TV to Computers to Smartphones to VR(current decade) and this is just in communication. Overall impact of technology on our lives is very large from big markets, LLM models and nuclear reactors.
In the initial days, we utilized what was given to us to create a simple and efficient society, fast forward to today, everything requires electricity to run, and our bodies naturally don't produce electricity, hence we are already moving away from sustainable future, as soon as we collapse on other natural resources, end up utilizing planet's core or magnetic fields to obtain power.
And there are no noticeable changes in the human body, biological during last decade. We require lot of information to work, brain size and it's processing power is getting impacted with the usage of Social Media and other addictive things on the internet. Our bodies are physically less capable than people from Stone Age. If this continues, I see only two ways of this going for survival either we doom ourselves back to Stone Age / Beam us out of existence once the very fabric holding civilization is strained enough, and we loose all of our knowledge because everything was made virtual from books to tools and people were unable to even to repetitive work because of ML models, our social communication skills get impacted due to communication with LLM models and virtual assistants. No human interaction, meaning inability to teach next generation how to speak. And we become monkeys or worse chimpanzees.
Or we as a civilization become a parasite that explodes our own planet and then we move over to Mars, destroy it then next and so on. Maybe, on our way we slave other alien civilizations and utilize them as our source for energy and keep deestroying the universe(if there is any else the multiverse and across many timelines)
This is absolutely not correct on a biological level for a given individual or statistically for a population of people.
> Our bodies are physically less capable than people from Stone Age.
This is also absolutely not correct on a biological level, you might argue that on average humans have more issues like obesity, but the evolutionary ability of people has not changed since then, and with knowledge of physiology, exercise and nutrition, the strongest people alive today are probably much stronger than people from the stone age. I'm pretty sure no one could squat 1000lbs until the last 100 years or so.
Which makes me wonder if civilization lives long enough by any chance till the end of universe, The Big Crunch and all that, would the prevailing knowledge be of interest to another universe of it's just an abstract visualization that exists along with universe and it's history and is bound to die along with it?
While it's true that human brains have been shrinking, it's probably not due to social media - it's been happening for ages, for one thing.
>physically less capable
No. Your typical person is less capable, but if you hypothetically took people, taught them basic things about fire-starting, safe and unsafe foods, etc, and dropped them in the middle of some isolated forest, the ones who survived would probably wind up being just about as physically capable, if not more so, than your typical Stone Ager.
> if this continues [first theory]
That is unlikely. First of all, backups will likely exist. Print books continue to exist. Second of all, it is very difficult to live a life with no human interaction. Who will feed babies, teach children, et cetera? People - generally speaking - crave human interaction. Any AI/LLM that would be successful in eliminating the need for human teachers, caregivers, etc, would need to be very similar to them. We would still interact - maybe with robots, but still speak. Also, there are still uncontacted tribes, who would probably prosper.
> And we become monkeys or worse chimpanzees
1) What's your deal with chimps?
2) We're actually closer evolutionarily to chimps than monkeys
3) I...don't think you understand evolution?
> [parasite theory]
It...uh...
It takes 200 gigatons of TNT to blow up a 25 km asteroid.[1] Some quick Googling and extrapolation suggests that asteroid weighs about 32.75 billion tons - in other words, the amount of TNT it takes to destroy an asteroid weighs over six times as much as the asteroid. Possibly. It's hard to figure this out. While asteroids are unusually hard to blow up, probably, and of course it's possible this effect diminishes with size, and there are more effective ways to blow things up than TNT, blowing up the earth would require turning a significant portion of the earth into explosives.
Earth has survived being impacted by something the size of Mars. I don't see humanity - or any species - feasibly destroying Earth, let alone the universe.
(Please don't try to prove me wrong on this...)
[1] https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/7/18251559/ast.... Written before DART.