Not a tech per se but I think they’d be more efficient. They’d go for standardization as the default, which would mean far less duplication of effort. They’d only break with that if a gain was to be realized.
In many cases higher rank humans block innovation because it threatens them. There’d probably be less if that too. Personally I suspect this is one reason it took 300000 years for humans to start building significant technology.
The thing that’s hard to imagine is what the driving force would be without much conflict. Conflict and competitions are easy motivators, at least for us. But a being with a different psychology might have different drives. It doesn’t have to be conflict that motivated growth, just some drive that ties into motivation.
I think if we look at pure science (science outside of publish-or-die commercial universities) and see the desire to learn and discover, that is plenty of motivation for many.
Humans have a natural urge to be inquisitive and make their life's simpler. Obviously if war and conflict were to be the only motivational possibilities, then I do wonder how we made it down from the trees!
In many cases higher rank humans block innovation because it threatens them. There’d probably be less if that too. Personally I suspect this is one reason it took 300000 years for humans to start building significant technology.
The thing that’s hard to imagine is what the driving force would be without much conflict. Conflict and competitions are easy motivators, at least for us. But a being with a different psychology might have different drives. It doesn’t have to be conflict that motivated growth, just some drive that ties into motivation.