diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'public/posts/nature-of-technology/index.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | public/posts/nature-of-technology/index.html | 111 |
1 files changed, 111 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/public/posts/nature-of-technology/index.html b/public/posts/nature-of-technology/index.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9abaea6 --- /dev/null +++ b/public/posts/nature-of-technology/index.html @@ -0,0 +1,111 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang=en-us> + <head><script src="/livereload.js?mindelay=10&v=2&port=1313&path=livereload" data-no-instant defer></script> + <meta charset="utf-8"> + <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> + <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="32x32" href="/images/favicon-32x32.png"> + <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="16x16" href="/images/favicon-16x16.png"> + <link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/style.css" /> + <link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/fonts.css" /> + <script async type="text/javascript" src="js/code.js"> </script> +</head> + + <header> + <img width="100em" height="100em" src="/images/logo.jpg" alt="my logo"> + <div> + <h1>mjkw.pl</h1> + <ul> + <li> + <a href="/">home</a> + </li> + <li> + <a href="https://git.denounce.ai/">git.denounce.ai</a> + </li> + <li> + <a href="https://ohmyghost.nl">ohmyghost.nl</a> + </li> + <li> + <a href="https://atlarge-research.com/mkwiatkowski/">research</a> + </li> + <li> + <a href="/contact">contact me</a> + </li> +</ul> + + + </div> + </header> + +<div class="single"> + <h2>Review of The Nature of Technology by W. Brian Arthur</h2> + <h4> Published on 2026/02/11</h4> + <p>(Writing in progress)</p> +<p>“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.</p> +<p><em>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.</em></p> +<p>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.</p> +<p><em>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.</em></p> +<p>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.</p> +<p><em>Our deepest hopes as humans lie in technology; but our deepest trust lies in nature.</em></p> +<p>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.</p> +<p><em>And so, the story of this century will be about the clash between what technology offers and what we feel comfortable with.</em></p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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:</p> +<p><em>[…] the novel technologies arise by combination of existing technologies and that therefore existing technologies beget further technologies.</em></p> +<p>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:</p> +<p><em>We can say that technology creates itself out of itself.</em></p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>Talking about the structure of standalone inventions: +<em>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.</em></p> +<p>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.</p> + +</div> +<footer style="vertical-align: bottom;"> + <div style="display: block; margin-left:20em; margin-right:20em; font-size: 10pt"> + <center> + + © Copyright 2025-2026 Mateusz J. Kwiatkowski. All Rights Reserved. No part of this website may be used or reproduced in any manner to train artificial intelligence technologies or systems. + + </center> + </div> +</footer> +</body> +</html> + |