Argument by this kind of loose analogy is generally not a very solid way make predictions about things. Consider: "We already have a world awash in civilizati

Argument by this kind of loose analogy is generally not a very solid way make predictions about things. Consider: "We already have a world awash in civilization. This civilization is, of course, termite colonies. Termite colonies are effectively miniature civilizations. They have specialization of labor, they build structures much larger than any one organism, and they go to war with one another. Yet even the nimblest termite colonies can only eat so much." "That is to say, no matter how much an organism evolves, we would be looking at something that is still hard-limited by its environment, even if it can compete with a termite colony's worth of construction ability. The danger isn't that it spreads through the world and destroys entire ecosystems; the danger is that it finds a supply of raw materials and smashes a termite mound or two while building its own bigger house." Humans don't respect the social conventions of much less intelligent animals that we've domesticated. If an AI much smarter than humans was created, I don't see strong reasons to believe it would respect our social conventions.