feat: added a new blog post and book (wip)

1 files changed, 79 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/content/posts/nature-of-technology.md b/content/posts/nature-of-technology.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..12f9d45
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/posts/nature-of-technology.md
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+title: "Review of The Nature of Technology by W. Brian Arthur"
+date: 2026-02-11T08:26:48+01:00
+draft: false
+---
+
+(Writing in progress)
+
+"The Nature of Technology" explains how the inventions of modern science come to being. 
+This book, published in 2009, was recommended to me by my research project supervisor, Prof. Alexandru. 
+Inside, W. Arthur presents from a new perspective how technologies evolve, drawing a parallel between scientific advancements and a Darwinian-like theory of evolution.
+The book is written fairly well, nonetheless there are points I would like to reflect upon. 
+
+_One last disclaimer: Because I write a book on technology the reader should not take it that I am particularly in favor of technology. 
+Oncologists may write about cancer, but that does not mean they wish it upon people. 
+I am skeptical about technology and about its consequences._ 
+
+Already in the preface of the book, the author makes a statement that I particularly like, as it conforms to my own beliefs and at the same time reassures me that it is not paradoxical to be a Computer Scientist and a technology sceptic at the same time. 
+Having read this, I breathe a sigh of relief, as this means I can continue in the direction of my discourse, without having to worry that I might be hypocritical.
+
+_I have many attitudes towards technology. 
+I use it and take it for granted. 
+I enjoy it and occasionally am frustrated by it. 
+And I am vaguely suspicious of what it is doing to our lives._
+
+To elaborate further on this quote, on the next page the author enters a discourse as to the unease that technology brings to our daily lives. 
+Arthur makes a really good point that human roots go back one way - to nature. 
+As such, the more our modern world deviates from the familiar, natural environment, the more we question the technology that causes this shift. 
+
+_Our deepest hopes as humans lie in technology; but our deepest trust lies in nature._
+
+That is not to say that we should go out and live in the woods instead of cities. 
+Nonetheless, these first 3 quotes play well into why we should be sceptical of technology. 
+We hope for it to solve our problems, and with this hope come expectations and unconditional acceptance of solutions to modern issues that technologies provide. 
+However, this does not mean its correct to do so. 
+I must admit in the recent times I noticed that less and less people, myself included, separate nature from technology.
+Since I was born (2004), I was surrounded by innovations such as cars, cellphones, computers etc.
+As a 12 year old, I never felt "uneasy" about using a computer or a tablet. 
+You can almost argue it was natural to me.
+It was only by becoming a Computer Science student that I was able to become aware of technology as separate from natural order of life. 
+We accept technology without critical thought, like the one of W. Arthur. 
+
+_And so, the story of this century will be about the clash between what technology offers and what we feel comfortable with._ 
+
+I disagree. 
+I think the clash that Arthur predicts will never come. 
+What we should be comfortable with will be imposed upon us, with little choice for the individual.
+
+Reading further, Arthur elaborates on why the book is needed - that the pure Darwinian model of evolution does not fit technology. 
+He puts forward the premise of the entire book: 
+
+_[...] the novel technologies arise by combination of existing technologies and that therefore existing technologies beget further technologies._
+
+This thought somewhat makes sense to me, but what is unacceptable from my point of view are the lines that follow roughly 5 sentences afterwards: 
+
+_We can say that technology creates itself out of itself._ 
+
+I understand what Arthur means here. 
+That all technologies have a common root, and there is a causal relationship between them. 
+However the formulation of this sentence is wrong according to me. 
+Technologies do not create themselves. 
+We make them into what they are, and it is us who can decide whether to put the new innovation forward or not. 
+Ethics forbid genetic engineering on humans, so we collectively are capable of stopping the march of technology for at least some innovations.
+These statements of course can be challenged further, but for now this is the way I think. 
+Should new observations arise, I might change my mind. 
+
+Further chapters of the book go more in-depth into the structure of technologies. 
+Arthur puts forward three different ways to define what a technology is and sketches an abstract view of its inside. 
+Here I can draw parallels between the concepts I was introduced with during programming classes. 
+Ideas like abstraction, encapsulation, modularity and compartmentalization were familiar to me already, so I was surprised to see how generic they are an that they appear in all technologies around us, regardless of their domain. 
+
+Talking about the structure of standalone inventions:
+_Each is an arrangement of connected building blocks that consists of a central assembly that carries out a base principle, along with other assemblies or component systems that interact to support this._
+
+This comes back to the Tanenbaum vs. Torvalds debate about monolithic kernel design vs. micro-kernel design. 
+In the end, indeed Torvalds won, since Linux is now the most popular operating system in the world.
+However the above quote begs the question: Did he ever stand a chance to win in the first place? 
+If the structure of invention is a wide body and smaller peripherals does this mean that all the inventions that do not follow this principle are bound to fail?
+I might be misunderstanding the point Arthur makes here, you could also argue that a micro-kernel still includes a kernel, but I think it is worthwhile to reflect upon this, and whether or not all designs (should) follow this principle.