In the quarter of a million years or so since humans joined the animal population on this planet, we have been actively changing our physical world, and not merely adapting to what we find. We have used technology, making endless alterations in the environment to help us flourish. It began with weapons and sharp-edged tools made from stone. We built shelters and defences against many threats, cooked our food, made baskets and pots, wove fabrics. Soon animal husbandry, horticulture and agriculture began; starting independently in several geographical locations, but widespread by 10,000 BC. So began our unique historical trajectory towards domination of our planet.
It was not a smooth or uniform process: technology never is in a steady state for long. Since earliest times people have triggered epochs of rapid innovation in technology, each changing the world. Very early among these revolutions was the use of domesticated animals. Bees were kept from 10,000 BC in North Africa, valued for both honey and beeswax. Horses were important by 4000 BC. Perhaps bred at first for their meat, horses were quickly seen as an important mechanical energy source, soon dominating all forms of land transportation.
And so it went on: great and memorable technology revolutions, one after another from then until now, and our own revolution—microelectronics on the silicon chip—arguably the most significant advance there has ever been. Technology is not static but from its beginning has been in process of continual development, presenting a different face to successive human generations. New material worlds change the patterns and boundaries of thought for those who live in them. This historical succession of new and different worlds, each giving rise to distinctive cultural outcomes, is created by the evolution of technology. Story-telling, fine and popular arts, philosophy, science and theology are immensely precious expressions of the human spirit. However, they make sense only when seen as responses to the place and time in which they appear, the unique material culture which is itself technology’s consequence in interplay with history.
In no way is this to be seen as technological determinism. What is going on here is a dialogue, or perhaps a ritual dance. Needs and wishes expressed in society at large evoke new technology. If it succeeds this should have the outcomes being sought, but will probably have others, not foreseen. Many facets of social behaviour and structure will change in time, to adapt to the new material environment that emerging technology has created. This transformed culture will evoke new social demands which again technology will seek to fulfil. And so it goes, turn and turnabout.
Technology is never in steady state so neither is our social forms and institutions. Each responds to the other. Already having brought us domination of our own planet, this process has not finished yet. We are reaching out to the universe. But technology has a worrying downside too. The news is not all positive—potential for good and evil have come together. People fear things to come, and need time to adjust their lives and thinking to manage unforeseen consequences of change. We are better able to do that if we have a broader perspective of what is happening.
To claim an important part for technology in human history is not controversial. My contention is that through this dialogue successful technology sets the direction and pace of all cultural evolution. The state of technology at any time is the major influence on the world, and not just the material world. Since the earliest times, humanity has lived beset by occasional revolutions in technology, which, in turn, change the world, often beyond recognition. This book is not a history of technology, still less of science. It questions how technology and social forces interact, leading to these successive revolutions and their outcome.
The following chapters explore five themes:
How is technology different from science and what language shall we use to talk about it?
How does technology go about its work? What is the doxastic method? One of the most widespread problem-solving strategies, technology orchestrates it to symphonic levels.
What distinctive feature have we in mind when we call an activity technology? Many animals use tools, but we do not think of that as technology.
How are the needs and wants society expresses matched to the contemporary potential of technology?
What characterises its successes and failures? In 1932 DELAG, the world’s first commercial airline, initiated a regular service direct from Berlin to Buenos Aires, using an airship. Yet in a few years airplanes were replacing airships everywhere because they were faster, cheaper and safer. Was what DELAG did a success or a failure? Perhaps it was neither—for a time it proved useful, so maybe it was just a precursor.
We are Homo Sapiens Sapiens, the apprentice guardians of Earth. If we fail in our duty of care for our planet no others will follow. No living thing here has the potential to displace us, and any sentient extra-terrestrials are just too far away. So we need to learn to be competent guardians of what we have. Our technology creates irreversible social revolutions. We blunder thoughtlessly into them, acting like children, innocent of what will follow. But now we are living in a unique epoch of human history: a great transition has begun. We are building, at absurdly low cost, general-purpose digital machines of more than biological complexity. Technology has come to childhood’s end, and it is time we took ownership of our future.
It would be absurd to claim that science and technology are not closely related. Many find it hard to say where one begins and the other ends. Any activity pursued in laboratories by people with advanced technical qualifications, using complex measuring instruments, and described in an arcane language with a lot of mathematics, that is surely science? Not necessarily, it may be technology. Science and technology may seem to outsiders like identical twins, yet they are deeply different. This unfamiliar idea is difficult even for some scientists and technologists to grasp, yet poles apart they are. Some people move between the two without difficulty, but they cannot be both at the same time and mostly settle for one or the other as their temperament inclines them.
Michael Faraday (1791–1867) is a good example.1 Of exceptionally high intelligence and creativity, he is sometimes called the father of English electrical engineering. In hope of improving their own standing, the English electrical utilities, feeling like poor relations compared with Gas and Water, gave him that title in the thirties of the last century. But Faraday never was an engineer; he was one of the most distinguished scientists of his age, and the informal scientific consultant to the British government. His interests went far beyond electrical topics and he made contributions to knowledge in many fields. When he built apparatus, like the early monster electromagnet with which he detected the existence of diamagnetism, he did so only to resolve experimentally the scientific issues that fascinated him.
Compare him with technologists like William F. Cooke (1806–1879)2 in England and Samuel B. Morse (1791–1872)3 in the United States, working at about the same time, whose primary concern was to establish nation-wide telegraph systems. When they made contributions to knowledge they were relatively minor and always subsidiary to the objective of building commercially viable telegraphs.
So despite their common ground, can we say what the essential differences are between science and technology? Technology is older than science by at least fifty thousand years. Its extended pre-scientific phase gave us the early civilisations and much to treasure, from Gothic cathedrals to using paper for information storage.4 The physicist Freeman Dyson, in an address to Texas University, said: ‘Technology … is the mother of civilisations, of arts and of sciences’. So Dyson sees technology’s distinctive methods coming long before science. It must have done, otherwise Egypt would have built no Pyramids, nor would the Orkneys have their incredible 5000-year old chambered tombs. All there was of science back then was a little arithmetic, with some rudimentary geometry and astronomy. Yet many people still believe technology is somehow the application of science—impossible, since the first preceded the second by millennia.5 Even today if science is not yet able to offer help, technology still needs, uses and makes progress at the forward edge of innovation by its own distinctive methods.
From tens of thousands of years ago, and to this day, innovation in technology has been achieved by successive trials, each of them constrained by trusted opinions—the doxastic method6,7 It can be seen as a kind of deeply thoughtful trial and error. After every trial comes critical evaluation of the result, to find out whether it has succeeded or the work of innovation will have to continue. Those trusted opinions that set boundaries to the area of trial, and on which its success depends, may come from past experience, from the views of others believed competent, examination of historical examples, or any other source of credible, persuasive information. When finally science appeared, its persuasive insights suggested that opinions brought to the doxastic method from that source were fit to be trusted. Success came faster and more reliably. Yet the basic method is a far older way of solving practical problems than science itself, and indeed is still in everyday and universal use.
Science would like to fathom all the workings of nature and the universe which are accessible to human understanding, everyone. What is more, the explanations must be in a convincing, reliable and verifiable form. The range it addre...