What is the defining factor that makes all technologies plateau unlike evolution that seems to be open-ended? Technologies don't change themselves, we do.
What? Evolution is specifically known for getting caught in local maximums. Species have little evolutionary pressure to get better when they are doing great, like a species with no predators on an island. The only thingsdriving evolution for that creature is natural selection towards living longer and getting less diseases, dying in less accidents, stuff like that. And those aren't specific enough and don't pressure on a time basis so there isn't much pressure to improve beyond the natural lifespan. Plus, for some cases, living longer is not really the goal, it's reproducing more. It's entirely possible, likely even, that maximizing for longevity eventually starts to give a negative effect towards reproduction, and vice versa, so an equilibrium is reached.
Also technologies don't develop like evolution really so not sure why you drew that comparison.
Technologies plateau for a combination of reasons - too expensive to make it better, no interest in making it better, can't figure out any more science (key people involved leave / die / lose interest, or it's just too difficult with our current knowledge), theoretical limits (like we are reaching in silicon chips). I don't see a lot of similarity with evolution there.
