Hmm... it's an interesting point/perspective (I haven't read the book, just the wiki), but isn't that like saying that the log under something heavy to transpor

Hmm... it's an interesting point/perspective (I haven't read the book, just the wiki), but isn't that like saying that the log under something heavy to transport is more significant than the wheel? Maybe you could argue that you couldn't have had the internet without the telegraph but I isn't that the case with every single piece of technology? This leads us to "standing in the shoulders of giants" etc. So my point is, what is the point of making this point, since even if his point is valid/true, they are in different orders of magnitude of how they affected the world. Note that I don't want to dismiss the whole argument without even reading the book, I'm just wondering...