Burning things for heat is never going away as long as humans are around, there’s always going to be someone “off-grid” which means you’re more than likely gonna be burning something for cooking and warmth (ie heat)
I love induction hobs, electric cars & planes, xenon spacecraft and all that, but even if we get to interstellar travel, there’s going to be a frontier where people are going to be using the lowest maintenance, easiest way to generate immediate heat, even if it’s from solar/fusion powered hydrogen or ethanol generators. It’s just a lot easier to store and release small but much larger than instantaneous generation amounts of energy as flammable substances than in batteries or pumped storage or whatever else.
If we don’t get to interstellar travel, I expect we’ll still have the same in remote regions on earth/our solar system.
Hahahaha! Marriage, social tribalism, and war are left, then. There are many reasons they are other things that are different from technology. But, can you give me an argument why they are specifically not technology? Or would you rather me try to give my reasoning why they are technology, first?
So I see technology as something that is developed to be explicitly used to solve a problem or impart change, that is identifiable as its own thing, and so can be used but then also may be eventually made obsolete. Right? Like clay usage or refrigeration. It’s all just a means to an end.
So an animal comes along, and doesn’t have scrape-two-rocks-together to make fire, and then later does, that would be a technology.
Another way to think of it, which is… Admittedly, kind of embarrassing, but I do think makes sense, is if you could “develop it” or even theoretically see it being developed in a strategy game like Age of Empires or Civilization or something.
So, humans have not always had, and eventually developed marriage (I’m not talking about love, as that is a VERY different thing and not my words or choice of topic, for now, as that’s even more of a stretch, and I’m not surprised that we still use it) in its current form at some point. Somebody in history thought it would be a good idea, and it got popular and caught on (another indication that it could be technology).
Similarly, tribalism and war also evolved in similar ways.
Tribalism did not exist, somebody thought it was a good idea, it got popular, and now we have moved on, with some vestigial brain habits, because current society does not really need it to survive, but because how society is now is only like 200 years old (and because almost all humans still practice some form of it, including those excluded), evolution hasn’t yet removed our expectations of it. It is a biological need, like somebody else said, but I’m arguing that it, itself, is a developed technology as a means to an end that we will/may evolve past our already decreased need for - we just had this very social behavior for such a long time that it became ingrained into our biological expectations and reliances. I’m not a sociopath or psychopath, but some say that those could be attempts at evolving past tribalism or social behavior reliance. In some ways, if they are, they are VERY successful, as they absolutely do not rely on tribalism, but rather massively exploit it, to their own enormous success (business executives like CEOs have a high prevalence of sociopathy).
War, too, did not exist for a very long time. Especially formalized war. It still exists absolutely, and may soon come to be used again. But, regiments of soldiers standing in rows on a battlefield, waiting to try to kill each other is the tool of nations to exert power. Small, informal war is the tool of smaller communities, and so on and so forth… But, war of any kind still needs to be defined abstractly, too. So maybe we could call it: committed violent conflict towards an other entity. Right? Because one has to either outwardly or inwardly “declare war” on something or someone - a country on a different country, a people against another people, a people on a country, a country on a people, or, metaphorically, a toddler on a parent, a company on another company, a neighbor on another neighbor, or the HOA against a resident, whatever. In the literal examples though, they are all committed declarations of violence against an other something. War then, may have evolved from the emergence of peace, I don’t know. But war as a thing can not have always existed (enter intrusive thought of the animal kingdom being hell and constant war and thousand-eyed staring crabs and epic music) and at some point evolved into the tool we have known for thousands of years.
John Lennon imagined a world without war, as if to ironically imply it was a dark constant of living… But he still imagined it - he still imagined a world where we have evolved past the need for it - past the need for that technology to solve problems.
The important distinction here I think may be less about which of these specific things are or aren’t technology, but seeing humanity’s accomplishments, as dark as they are, as the technologies that we have developed, and therefore will eventually supersede the need for. Fire, marriage, cookies/candy, tribalism, war, pagers, fax machines, paint, or cars. I’m personally invested in the need to get past marriage, as where I live, it’s only limited to abrahamic religions’ formats, mainly Christianity, and therefore only one other person, and if the more core of them had their way, between only a cishet man and a cishet woman, for the sole purposes of rearing offspring and spreading the religions (technology) and cultures (also technology and subset technologies) more.
I was really just going to argue the dictionary definition:
the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge.
the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.
And i don’t think the remaing 3 really fall under that definition. They are terms that describe a general concept, not a specific application of knowledge.
Also I have to disagree on this one:
Tribalism did not exist, somebody thought it was a good idea, it got popular
Tribalism existed (and still does) in nature long before we invented anything. All kinds of animals of the same species form groups and compete over territory which each other … which also is like a kind of primitive version of war, as well. And I feel marriage also falls into that kind of area, where at least with the larger mammals there is a need to care for immature offspring, which makes it an evolutionary advantage for parents to stay together.
But yeah, I think in the end it’s just about the semantics of the word technology.
Is evolution not technology? Plus, a lot of this stuff is used as tools, as a means to an end, rather than just purely emotional reptilian response. A lot of it IS reptilian, but a lot of it is also vestigial, as a conscious tool, especially when used by a society, rather than a single biological person.
It’s complicated, for sure. But so are the rest of the usages of old technology.
Back to the topic of biology vs technology, though, violence strictly speaking, is an abstract concept of events. We evolved it as a categorization or idea through the technology of language and conceptualization. The instinct in certain parts of our brains is biology, absolutely (and arguably also technology). But violence as a tool, as a means, I argue, is absolutely technology, in the same way that fire, or hunting, or fast food is technology.
If it is something developed, used, and can be moved past, I’d argue that it can be seen as technology. It doesn’t have to be electronic or even physical to be technology. Like farming methods, social structures, government, and even language.
I’m not saying they aren’t biological, that’s a different subject. But those things are absolutely technologies. Just very primitive ones… That we still use.
Burning things for heat or energy.
Marriage.
Candy.
Social tribes.
War.
Burning things for heat is never going away as long as humans are around, there’s always going to be someone “off-grid” which means you’re more than likely gonna be burning something for cooking and warmth (ie heat)
You don’t think humans will ever, even theoretically, reach a point where there is no need to burn things for heat?
Nope.
I love induction hobs, electric cars & planes, xenon spacecraft and all that, but even if we get to interstellar travel, there’s going to be a frontier where people are going to be using the lowest maintenance, easiest way to generate immediate heat, even if it’s from solar/fusion powered hydrogen or ethanol generators. It’s just a lot easier to store and release small but much larger than instantaneous generation amounts of energy as flammable substances than in batteries or pumped storage or whatever else.
If we don’t get to interstellar travel, I expect we’ll still have the same in remote regions on earth/our solar system.
Everybody itt:
I give you fire and even cookies. But the other 3 are definitely not technology.
Hahahaha! Marriage, social tribalism, and war are left, then. There are many reasons they are other things that are different from technology. But, can you give me an argument why they are specifically not technology? Or would you rather me try to give my reasoning why they are technology, first?
(Deleted, replied to wrong comment)
You go ahead, I’m currently grocery shopping.
Okay.
So I see technology as something that is developed to be explicitly used to solve a problem or impart change, that is identifiable as its own thing, and so can be used but then also may be eventually made obsolete. Right? Like clay usage or refrigeration. It’s all just a means to an end.
So an animal comes along, and doesn’t have scrape-two-rocks-together to make fire, and then later does, that would be a technology.
Another way to think of it, which is… Admittedly, kind of embarrassing, but I do think makes sense, is if you could “develop it” or even theoretically see it being developed in a strategy game like Age of Empires or Civilization or something.
So, humans have not always had, and eventually developed marriage (I’m not talking about love, as that is a VERY different thing and not my words or choice of topic, for now, as that’s even more of a stretch, and I’m not surprised that we still use it) in its current form at some point. Somebody in history thought it would be a good idea, and it got popular and caught on (another indication that it could be technology).
Similarly, tribalism and war also evolved in similar ways.
Tribalism did not exist, somebody thought it was a good idea, it got popular, and now we have moved on, with some vestigial brain habits, because current society does not really need it to survive, but because how society is now is only like 200 years old (and because almost all humans still practice some form of it, including those excluded), evolution hasn’t yet removed our expectations of it. It is a biological need, like somebody else said, but I’m arguing that it, itself, is a developed technology as a means to an end that we will/may evolve past our already decreased need for - we just had this very social behavior for such a long time that it became ingrained into our biological expectations and reliances. I’m not a sociopath or psychopath, but some say that those could be attempts at evolving past tribalism or social behavior reliance. In some ways, if they are, they are VERY successful, as they absolutely do not rely on tribalism, but rather massively exploit it, to their own enormous success (business executives like CEOs have a high prevalence of sociopathy).
War, too, did not exist for a very long time. Especially formalized war. It still exists absolutely, and may soon come to be used again. But, regiments of soldiers standing in rows on a battlefield, waiting to try to kill each other is the tool of nations to exert power. Small, informal war is the tool of smaller communities, and so on and so forth… But, war of any kind still needs to be defined abstractly, too. So maybe we could call it: committed violent conflict towards an other entity. Right? Because one has to either outwardly or inwardly “declare war” on something or someone - a country on a different country, a people against another people, a people on a country, a country on a people, or, metaphorically, a toddler on a parent, a company on another company, a neighbor on another neighbor, or the HOA against a resident, whatever. In the literal examples though, they are all committed declarations of violence against an other something. War then, may have evolved from the emergence of peace, I don’t know. But war as a thing can not have always existed (enter intrusive thought of the animal kingdom being hell and constant war and thousand-eyed staring crabs and epic music) and at some point evolved into the tool we have known for thousands of years.
John Lennon imagined a world without war, as if to ironically imply it was a dark constant of living… But he still imagined it - he still imagined a world where we have evolved past the need for it - past the need for that technology to solve problems.
The important distinction here I think may be less about which of these specific things are or aren’t technology, but seeing humanity’s accomplishments, as dark as they are, as the technologies that we have developed, and therefore will eventually supersede the need for. Fire, marriage, cookies/candy, tribalism, war, pagers, fax machines, paint, or cars. I’m personally invested in the need to get past marriage, as where I live, it’s only limited to abrahamic religions’ formats, mainly Christianity, and therefore only one other person, and if the more core of them had their way, between only a cishet man and a cishet woman, for the sole purposes of rearing offspring and spreading the religions (technology) and cultures (also technology and subset technologies) more.
Damn, you really thought about that a lot.
I was really just going to argue the dictionary definition:
And i don’t think the remaing 3 really fall under that definition. They are terms that describe a general concept, not a specific application of knowledge.
Also I have to disagree on this one:
Tribalism existed (and still does) in nature long before we invented anything. All kinds of animals of the same species form groups and compete over territory which each other … which also is like a kind of primitive version of war, as well. And I feel marriage also falls into that kind of area, where at least with the larger mammals there is a need to care for immature offspring, which makes it an evolutionary advantage for parents to stay together.
But yeah, I think in the end it’s just about the semantics of the word technology.
Love/hate, tribalism, and violence, are not technologies lol
It’s biology, it’s encoded in DNA, the results of evolution.
Is evolution not technology? Plus, a lot of this stuff is used as tools, as a means to an end, rather than just purely emotional reptilian response. A lot of it IS reptilian, but a lot of it is also vestigial, as a conscious tool, especially when used by a society, rather than a single biological person.
It’s complicated, for sure. But so are the rest of the usages of old technology.
Back to the topic of biology vs technology, though, violence strictly speaking, is an abstract concept of events. We evolved it as a categorization or idea through the technology of language and conceptualization. The instinct in certain parts of our brains is biology, absolutely (and arguably also technology). But violence as a tool, as a means, I argue, is absolutely technology, in the same way that fire, or hunting, or fast food is technology.
If it is something developed, used, and can be moved past, I’d argue that it can be seen as technology. It doesn’t have to be electronic or even physical to be technology. Like farming methods, social structures, government, and even language.
I’m not saying they aren’t biological, that’s a different subject. But those things are absolutely technologies. Just very primitive ones… That we still use.