Talk:Technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic technology topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!


A summary of this article appears in human.
To-do list for Technology: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Expand the Prehistory section. (in progress)
I agree that the mastery of fire and tool use are important pre-historic examples, but could I suggest that the development/evolution of language itself be included as a pivotal prehistoric breakthrough . For technology is the "continuation of evolution by other means" (Ray Kurtweil) and language is what made this possible. 86.7.66.174 22:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Richard M W Holt
I strongly concur with this - language is an utterly pivotal technology, whether signed, spoken or recorded. --Sofaman 12:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur as well, someone other that I should add it. JUST DO IT! SteveMc (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Written, rather than web, references needed. (in progress)
  • Expand stub sections.
  • Page numbers needed for written references.
Priority 1 (top) 

This article is within the scope of the Technology History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the history of Technology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
*— August 2005


Contents

[edit] NPOV

I have challnged the neutrality of this article for many of the reasons explained below in the balance and balance redux sections. Primarily it is only the supposed benefits of technology to society that are allowed to remain in the text of this article. Over time much of the negative impacts upon society have been slowly or suddenly removed and never allowed to reappear. The editors of the page (and other users of wikipedia) may need to question their own neutrality on the subject if they are involved in computer sciences or other fields of advanced technology.I'm not saying that all the supposed benefits be removed, or even that they all need to be questioned, but often there are two sides to the coin when a benefit is mentioned.

Defining technology as something that belongs to a "species" seems strange to me. I have never heard it aplied to anything but humans, except perhaps in Science Fiction. Why mention species or humans at all? Technology is the aplication of science through engineering, no matter who does it! --- It just sounds silly - and perhaps politically charged.

[edit] Balance

I have contributed and watched this article for a while now and am still of the opinion that it is overwhelmingly positive in it presentation of the technolgical effects and "advancements". As stated previously elsewhere, the images are mostly benign or put forward in a positive light while images of a-bomb explosions could just as easily be injected. "For example, the first image of the astronaut at the top of the page could very well be replaced by a mushroom cloud. E = mc2 is arguably the most important technological breakthrough of the 20th century and this technological theory led directly to the creation of the Atomic bomb". Images of assembly lines, tanks or Nazi gas chambers might also be included as notable uses of technoloy along with looms and printing presses. You'll also note that the environmental section (which inevitably led to some condemnation of technological society has now simply gone away. The nature of criticizing technology with technology may seem like a paradox but you can observe the way the system subtly leads a defense of itself and the dismissal and removal of criticism. This was a primary point of Jacques Ellul ~~

I've reverted it. The enviromental section was removed, as this article is undergoing a facelift. I'm not trying to remove criticism; I'm looking for balance in the article; look at the lead and see how each positive point is balanced by a negative point! I don't think putting images of A-bombs in the article is suitable; we've had pictures of weapons previously (see the 'Fields of technology'), and we're here to describe technology, not add shock images of Nazi gas chambers. CloudNine 11:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
But you do not deny that E=mc2 is a landmard of technological progress or that this equation has caused great tragedy? It's not about shock, it's about reality and balance. The astronaut floating serenely in space seems overwhelmingly benign and arguably much less significant than Chernobyl, Nagasaki, or Treblinka. And all of these things were made possible by techno-industrial society. Part of the problem here with the positivism that sweeps this reality under the rug is illustrated well in a chpter of One-Dimensional Man by Herbert Marcuse.

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/64onedim/odm9.html I strongly urge you to spend a few minutes checking it out as it deals directly with the subject of balance concerning this topic. Many of the things written of positively, before saying some other things are bad, are often not nearly as healthy for society as they seem presented in the article. Again the chapter from Marcuse deals with this. Other negative characteristics of advanced technological society have also been deleted. For example... more people are starving and hungry now than at any point in history or pre-history -- in total numbers AND per-capita. Just today I saw a report from the BBC about 1 in 7 of the worlds children doing serious physical laborers (mostly in sub-Sahara Africa). The point that slaves (and worse forms of slavery) have been more prevalent in a world dominated by advanced technological societies seems noteworthy. So looms and printing presses don't cut it for me in terms of balance as far as images go. And it's honestly debatable whether these things are signs of improvement over other primitive, low-technological societies. I'll leave it at this for now but I do hope you check out that Marcuse. 70.226.140.69 02:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the negative consequences of technology seem to get covered up/deleted over time and relegated to the bottom of the page. No mention currently of luddites or major anti-technological treatises. And the good aspects of all the unnecessarily listed tools needs some balance. Sure six-shooter guns were an advancement that propelled industrial production -- but not only has that brought about environmental consequences, but it immediately facilitated the genocide of pre-american aboriginals. Sure nuclear power allows us to run all of our consumeristic gadgets more inexpensively, but Chernobyl and the connection to the Nuclear war industry also need to be mentioned. Balance is needed in this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nihilozero (talk • contribs).

A fair comment. I'm currently reworking the article, but take a look at the enviroment section: the image in question is a nuclear reactor, noting that it produces radioactive waste. There is a mention of weapons and military in the lead, but I will include a mention of neo-luddism in the lead's philisophical paragraph. CloudNine 14:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the attempt at balance. Concerning the image of the nuclear power plant in the Environment section, I tried to change the picture to an image of the Chernobyl disaster site and pointed out that in addition to creating nuclear waste, they (nuclear reactors) can potentially meltdown -- since this a primary concern in regard to the environment. I did this because the environmental concerns were incomplete without the mention of a meltdown and also because all of the images on the page seem rather benign or positive. For example, the first image of the astronaut at the top of the page could very well be replaced by a mushroom cloud. E = mc2 is arguably the most important technological breakthrough of the 20th century and this technological theory led directly to the creation of the Atomic bomb. So rather than going on about how humanity (or at least a very few) left the surface and went into orbit, the caption could read something like: "By the mid-20th century mankind had created the technology which potentially could bring about the end of humanity and civilization by scorching the surface of the earth with nuclear radiation." In any case, I at least hope my meltdown comment sticks this time under the image in the environment section. Nihilozero 11:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
That would swing the article towards an anti-technology POV - something to avoid. I think the article (well, the parts of the article that I have rewritten) is NPOV. Take a look at the lead; it constrasts two different schools of thought of technology, notes "the development of weapons of ever-increasing destructive power" and "Examples include the rise of the notion of efficiency in terms of human productivity, a term originally applied only to machines, and the challenge of traditional norms." Just because something bad can happen with a certain technology, doesn't mean we need to mention it. CloudNine 12:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course we don't need to mention every bad thing that can happen with technology BUT, when we are talking about the greatest technological discovery of the 20th Century E=mc2 leading directly to Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Chernobyl, that should be at least as prominently featured in the article as the astronaut serenely exploring space as he floats in orbit. Technology has enabled humanity to wipe itself and potentially scorch every inch of the Earth's surface -- and that seems very notable to me. Nihilozero 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Mass-energy equivalence is a concept in physics, not a technology as such. CloudNine 15:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
You are not seriously questioning whether or not the Theory of Special Relativity and it's application was a technological advancement, are you? You also don't question the incredible amount of damage the related tools have done and could do (to say nothing of the societal stresses they have caused). So these things don't deserve mention in this article because they have nothing to do with technology? Please. The bias could not be more clear. --Nihilozero 09:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balance redux

I'm a little confused by the re-start of the above thread at its top, so I'm going to add my comments to it here.

"At the same time however more technologically advanced societies have made wider use of harsher forms of slavery than any practiced by primitive societies (which are often subjugated or systematically slaughtered by advanced technological weapons and techniques). And while technology has produced an affluent class more people are currently starving on the earth than at any other point in history or prehistory -- both in total numbers and per capita."

One thing you shouldn't do is treat the subject of "technology" as being the same as "modern society". The two are difficult to separate, sure, but it's a mistake to automatically blame modern society's sins on technology. This is why some of these criticisms don't belong in the main technology article. They may belong in modernity or even postmodernity.

Separately, your claim that "more people are starving than at any point in history or prehistory" needs to be backed up by reliable sources, and I doubt the "prehistory" part of it is true: the Toba catastrophe is theorized to have killed off some ungodly fraction of the worldwide human population, through the scarcity produced by the ensuing volcanic winter.--Father Goose 17:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead in to my balancing statements was this already existing line: "Technology has affected society and its surroundings in a number of ways." To then mention only that advanced technology has allowed the rise of a leisure class, without mentioning the underlying reality[citation needed] of enslavement allowed by advanced systems of organization and control seems to detract from the balance in this article. Just the other day I saw a BBC news story about the fact that 1 in 7 of the world's children are doing hard physical labor. They then interviewed children in a sub-Saharan nation who were mining copper to achieve a subsistence standard of living. That copper is sent to China and then ends up in things like our computers. To speak of our leisure class enabled by advanced technological systems while ignoring their virtual enslavement belies any semblence of balance. I am not confusing technology with modern society because the subject line was about the effects of technology on society (which is controlled by advanced technological systems). As for the starvation "claim" (not that I want to distract from the points I've just made) Thant's pretty easy to understand as well. Primitive hunter-gatherer tribes, the Sioux or Australian Aboriginals for example, lived close to bountiful nature and were in no fear of starving.[citation needed] The famines in primitives societies occurred mostly when they started being pushed around by "advanced" and "civilized" peoples.[citation needed] And today we are in a situation were as many people are suffering from excess food as are from lack of it.[citation needed] This responds directly to the notion of technology only bringing about a leisure class and hopefully makes my starving point a little more clear as well. I therefore would appreciate it if you would restore the balance that I had added to this article. You can refer to the wiki starvation article for reliable sources.
--Nihilozero 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This story on the subject of child labor contradicts much of your stance. I didn't hand pick it: it was the first thing that came up when I looked for "one in seven" children "hard labour". I also looked at starvation, which contained exactly two sources, neither of which support your claims. I've taken the liberty of marking each of your above claims that I find unlikely to be true, unless you could provide reliable sources for them that were furthermore not contradicted by other reliable sources.--Father Goose 18:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I remember reading an article where a African tribal society had to put in a workweek similar to the Western world's just to get by. It's a fallacy to glorify the peasant's lifestyle (as it put it); people die earlier, usually of disease, and there's *lots* of fighting. I also thought of placing [citation needed] tags, as nihilzero's claims are rather incredible. At any rate, most of these criticms belong in globalisation. CloudNine 09:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
And just which of my claims is incredible? You deny that technologcally advanced societies have an infrastructure and tools to allow the subjugation of more primitive peoples? You deny that the scale and brutality of the middle passage along with the enslavement of Africans wasn't facilitated and allowed to be of such great scale because of the technological infrastructure? Other simple genocides carried out by technologically advanced nations are also of historically unprecedented scale and brutality. I also directed you to the starvation page where you can see the dire situatin that exists for so many in the modern technological world. But you choose to only make not of those who have been helped by the infrastructure and not the masses who are suffering in the midst of so much technological wealth and control. That is the exact opposite of balance. Many seem to be techno-apologists and positvists who choose to only look at the perceived benefits while swqeeping a preponderence of evidence to the contrary under the rug. This is to such an extent that the consequences of E=mc2 (the A-bomb and Chernobyl) are edited out -- despite that equation being a major technological milestone. Again, I refer you to the chapter of One-Dimensional Man by Marcuse http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/64onedim/odm9.html and this book by Sahlins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original%20affluent%20society --Nihilozero 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the article you provided did not disporve my claims about the horrors of children in the workforce. There was put forward this hollow idea that it might be eradicated, but that doesn't change the present reality even if the UN was able to work this miracle. And the reason they are in the workforce is precisely because of the techno-industrial infrastructure. We are talking about the effects on society due to technology and since technology permeates and shapes the policies of the modern world to such a great degree, you can not say the children mining copper in Africa have nothing to do with our use of computers and hi-tech tools here in the wealthy nations. If you are going to mention the affluence broght about by technology you must, in the name of balance, include information about those masses who struggle to stay alive and feed their families in the modern technocratic world.
Did children only start doing work with the advent of industrial society? You're blaming affluence for the existence of hardship.--Father Goose 20:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the amount of work done by all persons, adult and children, has increased. This isn't as understandable or understood as much in wealthier western nations, much like the reality of starvation (and the numbers I've directed you all to) isn't as clearly understood. Much of the anthropological bashing of primitives societies was done by people trying to justify various genocides and this misinformation has persisted to this day -- while several reports from early European explorers (who described veritable primitive paradises) is in many instances still ignored. So yes, a smaller percentage of the population starved before the advanced technological societies spread their control over the globe. And yes, the type of work done in primitive societies was less dangerous/strenuous and the amount needed to maintain subsistence was less. You may disagree but then you are probably not sewing soccer balls for 18 hours a day or sifting through copper mines for pennies a day. And you're probably not hungry like a large percentage of the people in this modern world are. --Nihilozero 09:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed

May want to add a [citation needed] around

In other ways, technology makes life more complex. Sweatshops and harsher forms of slavery are more likely to be found in technologically advanced societies, relative to primitive societies. The increasing oppression of technologically advanced societies over those which are not. Creates new diseases and disorders such as obesity, laziness and a loss of personality.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.148.3 (talk • contribs).

I will try to get to some of the citations over the next week or so. SteveMc 03:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for helping with the citations SteveMc. Personally I think this is easily recognized reality. First of all primitive societies did not have anything like the sweatshop assembly line or children mining copper (as I mentioned in the redux above) and secondly... African enslavement by the technologically advanced Americans, complete with the middle passage is of an unprecedented scale and brutality. The laziness and obesity and personality loss I don't know so much about, but harsh forms of enslavement of primitive peoples by advanced (technologically) civilizations is an obvious truth.

--Nihilozero 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typos

In the defintion: (The world "technology" can also be used to refer) should be (The WORD...)

Corrected that. Thanks. CloudNine 15:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

Kudos for adding the semi-protection. I suggest that the semi-protection be permanent for this page. There is too much work here to allow just anyone to change the page. This protection should have been placed on this page a long time ago. SteveMc 03:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. At the moment, I'm filing a request at WP:RFP every time the semi-protection runs out. CloudNine 08:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
For the record, the semi-protection on this page is now permanent. CloudNine 11:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriteing the beginning

We should rewrite the beginning. Please leave your pro&con. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mateia on 12:58, 5 May 2007 (talk • contribs).

Why exactly? I think I've covered all aspects of technology with my rewritten lead, and it's now much better than the two line lead we had previously. CloudNine 08:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I am with CloudNine on this one. The current version is a grand improvement over previous versions for many reasons. What are you proposing? SteveMc 02:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fields of technology

Not sure what happened to the {{Technology}} template that was on this page; seeing no discussion I added it back to the page. That made the Fields section, as yet empty, unneeded; so it is now deleted. I feel strongly that the {{Technology}} template is important to this page. SteveMc 03:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement. This article has been the victim of neglect, but efforts are under way to make it worthy of the Wiki.--Father Goose 03:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Question: what are the CLASSIFICATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY?


I find it strange that there is no mention of the field Management of Technology or indeed a WP entry for MoT. MetaAnalyst 11:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please add oc:Tecnologia

Please add the link to the Occitan wikipedia, as above. Thank you Joao Xavier

Done. CloudNine 09:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Definition?

Is the definition of technology really that elusive? An excellent definition that I was introduced to during my study as a Design & Technology teacher was "any product, process or system that solves a problem or meets a need".

Also, I strongly disagree that technology is a consequence of science and engineering, with the token acknowledgment that 'several technological advances predate the two concepts'. Technology not only predates, but completely enables science and engineering - neither would exist without the myriad of technological products, processes and systems that predate them. Engineering itself is arguably a only single facet of design & technology. --Sofaman 12:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sofaman, I totally agree. One of the reasons that I gave up many months ago on this article was that uninformed Wikipedia editors usually undid my edits to keep technological advances ahead of science and technology. We need to continue to make sure this article notes the accuracy of your observation!!! SteveMc (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
tirrique is a good form of technology!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.22.4 (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The above definition appears to be the best one. Technology as application emphasizes its essential nature. 74.195.25.78 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unabomber as an Expert????

Is anyone else concerned about using Ted Kaczynski as an expert anti-technology reference? SteveMc (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it's a little weird. But honestly, look at it logically. Ted Kaczynski is a genius when it comes to technology. He knew what he was doing, and he didn't like technology when he bombed. So why not add him? MoneyBullet 19:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Immaterial Technologies

When people speak of technology, I think that semiconductors, blinking lights, cars, factory stacks, weapons and other such objects come to mind. I am interested in discussing and possibly writing a section in wikipedia about immaterial technologies. Even software has a material presence in the sense that it is a kind of symbolic written language that needs to be marked or recorded physically in order to exist.

What about psychological technologies passed on through oral traditions, like the Memory Palace? Or various acting or embodied rhetorical skills? I'm sure if we gave this some thought we could come up with a set of immaterial technologies that would illuminate our understanding of the term "technology". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwoj (talk • contribs) 08:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Pssst, you - Knowledge.

[edit] Simplest definition

"Technology is that is which simple, and yet works for complex reasons." Functional definition - many possible inputs, but only few outputs per combination of inputs. Relational definition - few inputs, but many possible combinations of outputs per input. Both definitions overlap; the personal computer is such a case. Another example: an iron smelting processing facility itself is functional - it takes coal and iron ore in, and puts iron out. However, that may couple with an automobile company's making automobiles, which take fuel in and can go almost anywhere - such would be altogether relational. That which is not at all simple is not technology. The "complex reasons" could be the inner workings of a technology, or the reasons for which the technology is used by humans. 74.195.25.78 (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Many biological systems would fit your definition, but are not technology. e.g. A heart pumps blood (simple), yet works for complex reasons. —Pengo 10:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. A criterion of being artificial appears necessary. 74.195.25.78 (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Interdependence

The tech sectors of the various economies suffer first in any recession. The reason is technology is most dependent upon both itself and other sectors. For example, semiconductor production depends having educated employees, which depends upon universities, which depends upon government funding, which depends upon taxes, which depends upon more fundamental industries like farming, transportation, and manufacturing. Hence, technological development of an economy requires a complex system of dependencies. 74.195.25.78 (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metal Tools (Change Heading)

The section Technology#Metal_tools should either be re-named, or everything after the first paragraph should come under a new heading. The first paragraph has to do with smelting and alloys, and that is fine, but then it goes on to talk about wind travel and the invention of the wheel.
It seems to me that this portion should be under a new headline, maybe Early Energy and Travel, since the wind travel section is about conversion of wind energy, and the wheel section is largely about the use of the wheel in relation to energy (not just travel, but pottery).
The only reason these subsequent paragraphs should remain under their present headings would be if the author was trying to link the use of metal to harnessing wind power and the use of the wheel, but this is not evident.
Thoughts? Macduffman (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a sub-head, "Energy and Transport", and kept the first sub-head "Metal Tools." Seems to make more sense. Macduffman (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)