3 ms·
It's not technology. Technology is art, craft, human creation. Natural phenomena can be hard for us humans to understand.
by HPsquared 2y ago
It's not technology. Technology is art, craft, human creation. Natural phenomena can be hard for us humans to understand.
- serf 2y agoI agree with the spirit of what you're saying with a caveat; I do not think that the concept of technology requires human progenitors. so with that said, and the addition of 'simulation theory' or some other such never-knowable.. well , maybe it is all technology, we'd just never know. I think I prefer the grand splendor of natural phenomena, myself. Even as just a think-er it's just a more interesting premise to me.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoWho gets to define ‘technology’?’ Clearly no number of pseudonymous accounts on HN can decide anything on behalf of anyone else.
- HPsquared 2y agoI have a bias towards etymology. Here's the entry for the root τέχνη: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%CE%AD%CF%87%CE%BD%CE%B7#Ancient_Greek https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%CE%AD%CF%87%CE%BD%CE... That word is all about human (or other) intelligence and skill. Natural things developed and grew by natural processes, not clever skilful design. It's a different animal. It's the difference between art and science. Technology is a form of art. Patents use the term "prior art" for a reason.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoAre beaver dams not natural then? But technology?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- HPsquared 2y agoI guess they are beaver technology. Non-human intelligence. It's a philosophical question. Regardless it's not the same kind of "mindless brute force evolution" that led to ATP synthase.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> It's not technology It’s not. But watching ATP synthase essentially run a turbine [1] looks damn close to what we’d design (and extend). [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lUrEewYLIQg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lUrEewYLIQg