I found the Chapter, “Necessity’s Mother,” to be very insightful and thought provoking. The author provides explanation and evidence to account for the observation that some regions of the world have a greater degree of technological development than others. He lists multiple economic, ideological, and geographic factors which he believes contribute to these differences. I think his reasoning is sound, and the geographic factors seem to be especially important in explaining the apparent systematic differences. He lists such factors as war, resource abundance, and centralized government (pp.250), which influence technological development. Resource abundance, of course, is important because it determines the raw materials industries have available, as well as the types of innovation which would benefit a given society. Government is important because it creates the environment which determines incentives inventors have to invent. The free market in the United States, for instance, is largely unregulated by the government. This lack of regulation allows for competition; for companies which develop technology, this means competition for innovation with the hope of increased market share and monetary gain.
In addition, the author emphasizes that the degree of innovation in a particular region is not so much dependent on one or even several “great minds,” but rather on society’s receptiveness to and ability to use the technology. This seems reasonable since clearly not all “great” minds are concentrated in one or several regions of the world. Once an invention or type of technology “catches” in a particular region or country, it can be “self-catalyzing.” Such was the case with the technology boom in the U.S. in late twentieth century as computers became more affordable and more widely used. Technology in the computer industry (and related industries) took leaps during this time not because human intelligence increased at a similar rate (because it’s a safe assumption that it didn’t), but because a market had been created that held technology which found application in a multitude of fields. This new industry not only created a necessity, but made society extremely receptive to and hungry for more technology. I don’t think the author intends to discredit individual “genius” or contributions, but rather point out that although these are necessary for innovation, they are not alone sufficient.
I think it’s also important to briefly touch on the interplay between technology and mathematics, as well as the way in which each seems to continually push the other forward. On the most fundamental level, binary code runs computers. Then, programs and systems run by computers can lead to advances in mathematics, specifically in performing calculations and computations which would have previously been too time consuming to provide for any practical application.
I liked this post. Specifically, I liked how your first paragraph focused on (or at least mentioned) the full depth of how geography affects technology - namely, how it determines a community's available resources, which, in turn, probably have the most significant effect on the advancement of technology.
ReplyDeleteNot to discredit any of the other great points made [in both your post and Diamond's 500 page book], but the reason I was looking for this point in particular - and why I was rather surprised that it didn't come up in the reading - was that I recently had taken a course in anthropology some semesters ago which straight up taught that the main concluding point of Guns, Germs, and Steel was that the reason Europeans/Eurasians advanced their technology so much faster than most if not all other cultures was based pretty much entirely on the diets available. Coming from the Fertile Crescent, Eurasian predecessors were the first to discover and efficiently grow the highly nourishing crop of wheat, which, in addition to promoting strong physical (and I suppose mental) growth, was apparently easily stored enough so as to allow the culture to become sedentary and have time for innovation, etc. - and a lot more so in comparison to beans, potatoes, and even the rice of the East. So I guess I was just a bit surprised when the actual reading not only didn't mention that at all but pointed out things like how Europe wasn't even at the head of technology until ~700 years ago.
But anyway in an attempt to stop this post from becoming as long as my last one (God forbid), I'll quickly skip ahead to the last thing you said about the co-evolutionary relationship between mathematics and technology. Though it's not a particularly insightful point (indeed I'm sure you already had this in mind when you typed that up), I just wanted to mention how mathematics itself is a piece of technology [perhaps the most basic and crucial technological advancement], and - in direct accord with what Diamond had said about the exponentially autocatalytic nature of technology - it is bound to be continually applied to all other new advancements in order to pave the way for even greater knowledge.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I was thinking about while reading this article, was the fact how new technology gives rise to new math. Dr. Crist said in last class how tribes in Africa count 1, 2, and many. It is probably safe to assume then that the tribe is not the most technologically advanced. However, when you look at the middle eastern era, the chapter talked about how they were one of the most technologically advanced societies, and I don't really find it a coincidence that they also made a lot of discoveries in the way of mathematics,i.e Algebra. The article also mentioned how many inventors are just sitting around tinkering with random stuff till they invent something, and to me that sounds an awful lot like what mathematicians do. You have a person sitting in their study tinkering around with a problem, and eventually they may come to an answer. While the implication of their solution may not have any practical use right now, there is that possibility that it will come in handy in a future technology. In the end, this chapter uses the past to give us a lesson that we should all take away. Even though your invention, innovation, or mathematical discovery has no practical use today, it could be a the brick work that is needed to create something that the future will find essential.
I really like the tie-in with geography. Something that Dr. Sherrard in the History department often says is that you cannot seperate humans from their geography, and I think that in regards to technology this is especially so. I do want to comment, however, on a pervious poster who said something about wheat; I've recently read that wheat is actually bad for you in many ways (for instance, there was a study done in which patients who had mental disorders removed wheat from their diet, their symptoms were much less severe). Anyway, I agree that a peoples time and place, coupled with their cultural values, are the most important factors governing the evolution of technology.
ReplyDeleteThis article reminded me a lot about evolution of organisms. If an invention is relevant to the culture and the location, then it can thrive and maybe evolve into a better version of itself. But if the invention is irrelevant to the needs of the people, then it will die off and be buried in history.
ReplyDeleteI really like that you highlight the idea that innovation is not simply dependent upon "great minds" but upon the society's acceptance of invention and innovation. While reading the very first few paragraphs of the article, my first thought was surely some societies do not invent such things because they have no use for them. As the article soon expressed, however, many societies in similar regions and living situations embraced innovation while others still shunned it. I found it very interesting these societies living in similar areas could differ so greatly in their receptiveness to innovation and technological advancement, such as the Aboriginal tribes. This evasion of invention is quite different from the great demand for technological innovation in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteI like how succinct your summary is. But touching on your last paragraph a lot of abstract thought had to be available to reach binary. I agree with you tying in mathematics but I have read somewhere else that there is an internal feedback between increasing abstract thought and advancement of technology. This is in agreement with both your response and the article read for class. Once a new technology is in play in the society the society itself has to raise its communal abstract thought or fail as a nation. The surrounding societies see this and reciprocate the process starting a rat race of technology. These factors help drive invention and the other article I read agrees with invention being necessities mother in as much as if the society fails to accept a new technology than its abstract thought fails as well and will fall behind in the technological rat race.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading this chapter, I never really though of invention as a process. I always felt like the best inventors woke up one morning with a brilliant idea in their mind and when to work and the first model was always the final product. It was interesting to think about how most of the famous inventors that we think of really just improved on something that had already been around for a long time.
ReplyDeleteI also found it very interesting that many times the original purpose of the invention wasn't always what made that particular creation famous. The example of the phonograph was what really surprised me. Edison had all these big grand ideas of how the phonograph was going to change the world but it became popular because people simply wanted to record and listen to music.
Having read a large majority of “Germs , Guns and Steel” I think it is interesting to see the progression of society from ancient times to now and how intertwined progression is in all aspects of development. Without necessary cultural advancements a society cannot accept technological advancements.
ReplyDeleteMany times, people are unaccepting of things that are different to their familiar comfort zone. They accept the familiar. Therefore when a foreign cultural with different advancements comes with extremely advanced technology they are not ready to be all accepting and the gap can widen.
I think it was interesting how many inventions were created with no actual idea of their ultimate use.
When reading the article, I was given ideas about technological advances that I had not thought of before. But I suppose that some inventions get a lot of attention because of the time and place it is invented. Also, I was pleased to see that the author pointed out that some inventions are more popular for a purpose different than what it was originally meant for. At first, I thought this was absurd, but then I thought of social networks like facebook and twitter, and realized that a lot of things I see on those sites nowadays are political stuff (when I’m sure that the original purpose for such sites were to connect with friends).
ReplyDeleteI’m pleased to see that you tried to tie in the article with something about math. Indeed, when first reading the article, I couldn’t see a connection. While I can see your point in math and technology pushing each other forward, I personally think that for the most part, advancements in mathematics can only be done by humans. After all, humans make technology (like computers), but the technology cannot think like a human (i.e. it’s limited to its design). But humans will always be able to think outside the box and create/discover new things.
As for technology and mathamatics being an product of aggregate development I have to say I'm not really suprised. I feel like I've heard this before, although the discussion on how inventions are often born and then given a completely different use than their first intention *or* invented with no function and eventually assigned one (or not in the case of keyboard) and that was really very interesting.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of computers catalysing by creating an need and a interest is very interesting, but I think it's an even more telling example of how fast the evolution of technology can progress, there is a shorter and shorter gap between what was invented, and the next thing that can be invented, with little discourse (because of the speed) on whether or not it *should* be invented.