From af2144dadfecc18e368fd5784b203794c1e6d9af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mjkwiatkowski Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 12:55:51 +0100 Subject: feat: changed website layout --- content/posts/nature-of-technology.md | 79 ----------------------------------- 1 file changed, 79 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 content/posts/nature-of-technology.md (limited to 'content/posts/nature-of-technology.md') diff --git a/content/posts/nature-of-technology.md b/content/posts/nature-of-technology.md deleted file mode 100644 index 12f9d45..0000000 --- a/content/posts/nature-of-technology.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,79 +0,0 @@ ---- -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. -- cgit v1.2.3