---
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.