Heroic historiography of science and technology has dominated well past the moment when historians had despaired of kings and heroic battles as shapers of human history. The lone scientist and inventor still hogs today's narrative. These heroes have been joined lately by visionary entrepreneurs à la Steve JOBS, who "invented the future". Humbug, says the author, and I concur wholeheartedly. This splendid book, easy to read ans understand, explains why.
There are a few million living species. Our material artifacts outnumber them easily. The author is correct in pointing out that diversity of artifacts is a distinguishing characteristic of human life. Necessity is not the reason for this stupendous diversity: "it is a testimony to the fertility of the contriving mind and to the multitudinous ways the peoples of the earth have chosen to live." (pg. 208)
The author explains this diversity of artifacts not so much by invention as by evolution: "the prevalence of artifactual continuity has been obscured by the myth of the heroic inventive genius" (pg. 208) and postulates continuity, even if convoluted and rhyzomic (my term here), rather than directed and progressive. At each point in time the potential for technological innovation is far greater than any society can hope to exploit. Play, fantasy, and emulation all collaborate to create this potential. So do psychological and intellectual factors (Chapt. III). Socio-economic and cultural factors should not be discounted (Chapt. IV).
Selection may be based on economic and military factors - we could call them "necessity" (Chap. V). In many cases, however, social and cultural factors are deeply involved (Chapt. VI). "Ultimately the selection is made in accordance with the values and perceived needs of society and in harmony with its current understanding of "the good life"." (pg. viii).
It is the author's great merit to have chosen Darwinian evolution as the overarching explanatory metaphor explaining the evolution of technology. He should be commended for this. A generation later, and with deeper knowledge of Darwinian processes, new authors are picking up this metaphor is picked up and deepening it (See Alex MESOUDI
Cultural Evolution: How Darwinian Theory Can Explain Human Culture and Synthesize the Social Sciences
).
Metaphors constrain as much as they explain. Contrary to speciation we do have discontinuities with artifacts - when they are used for a different purpose, so as when first a hammer was used as a weapon. Chance and whimsy probably play a larger role than they do in nature. Just an example: I've read somewhere that the race between the steam and petrol car was decided by foot-and-mouth disease. An outbreak of this disease among horses led to the elimination of troughs on public highways, which may have spread contagion. Such troughs were used to refuel steam cars, so their refueling stations were eliminated.
The author discounts somewhat path-dependent outcomes and "autonomous technologies". I'd be more reserved. As long as the laws of scarcity are not repealed, efficiency will be a main criterion for technology choice. Once efficiency enters the realm of choice, it tends to overshadow other criteria. It is also the lowest common denominator when values conflict. In fact "efficiency" has become a very hard task-master, ruling us impartially.
Individual agency remains the source of invention in the book's paradigm. Is it really so? If we are truly social animals, creativity is also social - though we may perceive is as personal, nay solitary. I would be wary of the "lone tinkerer" as much as the "lone genius". The act of creation arises from the "meeting of minds" - Newton spoke of standing on the shoulders of giants. It is in dialogue that most brilliant ideas emerge, and one is loath, as the creation unfolds, to assign its original spark to anyone. The inventor's reception of the emergent spark and the kindling and nurturing of the emergent fire assigns authorship to him. Fair enough. If one writes a history of technology, however, the social aspect should be highlighted, for it is the bed from which new ideas spring. Clustering great minds is often a winning proposition - unless the great minds drift into a tiring game of establishing a pecking order among themselves.
The author is liberal in the use of examples and "stories". Some are apt, some fascinating, and the best are "paths not taken" (pg. 189 ff.). Others tend to be overlong. And one quibble: fire antedates the emergence of homo sapiens sapiens by about one million years. Cooking food was a prerequisite for our large brains. In this sense it was not a choice, but a necessity.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
Frequently bought together
$40.00
Get it May 31 - Jun 8
Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
Total price:
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
What do customers buy after viewing this item?
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Top reviews from other countries
Amazon Customer
The Origins of the Technological Species
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on October 30, 2021virgilio pellandini
not what it says on the tin
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on June 2, 2021
