I was just reading it, and I realised that these sorts of discussions are always based on one assumption: That technology inevitably progresses.
Which is patently not the case. Technology is very much the result of specific social conditions. It is absolutely unessecary for survival. Biologically Homo Sapiens is 200,000 years old. We only started making tools/using language about 50,000 years ago. So already, for 3/4th's of it's existence, intelligent life was 'non-technological' - although as we know, many birds and primates which we don't consider sentient use tools, and many animals use basic forms of 'language'.
Modern technology (electricity/steam) has only existed for just over 1/500th of those 50,000 years of tool making and language use. And more importantly, it only arose once: in western Europe. It was us who spread the technology around.
I mean, rewind a bit and think about it. 'Civilisation' (In terms of farming, cities, complex art and architecture, and large populations all in one) only arose independently in the Mediterranean, in China and in Mesoamerica. Even in those cases, other socities which they had contact with did not automatically adopt civilisation or their technology (Only the choiciest bits, generally). Northern Europe at the fall of the Roman Empire wasn't any more technologically advanced than it had been 2,000 years before, even though they had extensive contact with the Romans, both peacefully and otherwise.
In North America, South America, most of Africa, Oceania, extreme areas of Northern Europe (ie. the Saami in Finland) and large swathes of Asia "technology" and society never really evolved much further than a mesolithic/neolithic level. In some cases, like the Australian aborigines, it can be barely termed paleolithic. I do believe in some areas of Scandinavia technology actually actively regressed for awhile during the middle ages. Yet, none of those societies were or are less intelligent than Western Europeans.
Not that technology is a pre-requisite or a result of civilisation even. The Mesoamerican's weren't that technologically advanced: They didn't have draft animals, the wheel, and the only metal they knew how to work was gold - yet they still managed to develop large cities, construct impressive structures, and create complex art and sculpture. There is no guarantee that if we left them there for another 10,000 years, they would have developed electricity.
The Great Filter, as Nick Bostrom calls it, might simply be the social proccesses which initiated our technological progress. I mean, it's our belief in the powers and superiority of technology and Science - combine with a healthy dose of luck - which drive these advances, not some natural inevitable process. I view technology as a random result of various factors, much like evolution. It is not progressive, or a natural goal for intelligent life.
Lots of socities today still actively reject all our advances, and much prefer living a la-paleolithic. Some scientists and archaeologists believe in some respects that is a healthier lifestyle (In fact, one of the less talked about results of civilisation is the rise of disease epidemics. Being so tightly packed together makes it really easy for disease to spread quickly.). Of course, then you can also get in to what constitutes sentinence and intelligence. There are some highly intelligent crows and primates, and many intelligent mammals.
In any case, I rather like my technology. I don't much care for hunter-gathering, pastoralism or horticulture. And I love Science. :P But it is a point worth making, I feel.