In previous blogs, I contrasted the critical view of Ellul toward technology with the more hopeful outlook of Teilhard. In this piece, I want to offer a third view of a technological age that is more detached yet still useful for our discussion: W. Brian Arthur’s emphasis on the link between technology and nature. If the positive and negative value judgments offered by Teilhard and Ellul form two ends of a spectrum, Arthur’s alternative takes us outside that spectrum. He provides a more neutral evaluation of what technology is and how humankind should approach it.
Hailing from the prestigious Santa Fe Institute, economist W. Brian Arthur was one of the first academics to tackle the question of how technology evolves. In his 2009 seminal work, The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves, Arthur sketches the theoretical contours of how technology emerges. Using examples from the last two centuries, he builds a comprehensive case to show how new technologies build upon previous technologies, similar in nature but also with their own particularities. This book is a valuable resource for anyone seeking a deep-dive, theoretical perspective on the topic of technology’s emergence and evolution.
Given Arthur’s theoretical and technical approach, what could such a detached view contribute to our discussion on the technological age? How can his observations and framework inform a broader analysis of technology’s impact on society? I would like to highlight two main insights from the book that provide further nuance to our discussion.
Nature and Purpose
Arthur defines technology as an effort to harness natural phenomena for a purpose. If we break down this definition, two main insights emerge. The first is the recognition that technology is intricately tied to nature. That is, the technology we have today is only here because nature provided the conditions, parameters, and materials for them to exist. Technology does not exist in a vacuum and it is not self-referential. In order to make it work, at its foundation, one must understand the laws of nature that govern our planet, or at least enough of them to use and direct them for a purpose. This is why the marriage of science and technology that started in the 20th century has been so effective. Our understanding of nature grew by leaps and bounds in the last century, and so did technology.
Underneath this point, there is also a surprising realization. Because of nature’s primacy, it does not need technology to live on. After all, nature has progressed for billions of years on Earth without the help of human technologies. It can continue to do so in spite of the absence or failure of technologies in the future. Technology, on the other hand, cannot exist without nature. That is, if we move out to another planet, all our technologies must be reconfigured or redesigned to fit into a new world.
The second insight from Arthur’s definition of technology is equally illuminating. That is, technology starts with a purpose. If we press this question further, it often starts with a problem yearning to be resolved. The builders begin with a clear end goal, exploring the best approach that will best reach that goal. In this way, it is very similar to evolution in nature, an iterative process always in the search for the best way to enhance and perpetuate life in a given environment.
Source of Fear and Hope
Arthur’s work stays mostly on the technical and theoretical level for the vast majority of the book. He goes on in detail not just to explain his theory but also to demonstrate it with examples of how specific technologies evolved. Yet, towards the end, the book takes a more reflective tone. In that part, the author talks about the relationship humans have with technology that goes beyond just building them.
Arthur also evaluates human attitudes towards technology in pop culture and more specifically in science fiction. There he finds an interesting paradox: humans both fear and hope in technology. On the one hand, the technological artifacts that surround our lives give us a sense that they are unnatural, artificial. They are not always intuitive, nor do they blend well with our environments. They evoke strangeness to bodies that evolved for millions of years without their aid. We are unsettled by them. We fear them.
On the other hand, we often deposit our hope in technology. Nature can harm us, or limit us, and technology promises to help us harness nature in ways that allow us to surpass those limitations. In a world where nature has lost its enchantment, we turn our adoring eyes to technology. We look to technical solutions to calm our fears, reduce our anxieties, and provide comfort and distraction from the harsh realities of life. Though the author does not go that far, I would say that the cult of technology has become a religion in and of itself.
Conclusion
Where Ellul approaches technology with pessimism and Teilhard with optimism, Arthur’s perspective allows for both. The paradox of fear and hope undergirds and defines our technological age. There is hope that as technology advances, human suffering and death will diminish. There is also a profound sense of loss and a nagging desire to return to nature, the starting point for our bodies. That uneasiness is hard to shake off.
Above all, Dr. Arthur highlights technology’s dependence on nature. This is a remarkable insight that leads us back into reflections on identity and connection. If technology is dependent on nature, then one could argue that it is an extension of nature just like we are. If that is the case then it is time to remove the illusion of artificial versus natural. It is all natural.
If we see technology and nature as a continuum, we can enrich our conversation about technology. It is no longer a foreign agent that we need to deal with, but a reflection of who we are.
