What do you think?
Rate this book
What Technology Wants
"More thriller than primer, this is the best technology book I have ever read." -Nicholas Negroponte, author of Being Digital In this provocative book, one of today's most respected thinkers turns the conversation about technology on its head by viewing technology as a natural system, an extension of biological evolution. By mapping the behavior of life, we paradoxically get a glimpse at where technology is headed-or "what it wants." Kevin Kelly offers a dozen trajectories in the coming decades for this near-living system. And as we align ourselves with technology's agenda, we can capture its colossal potential. This visionary and optimistic book explores how technology gives our lives greater meaning and is a must-read for anyone curious about the future.
416 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2010
406 people are currently reading
9580 people want to read
About the author
Kevin Kelly
132 books1,601 followersKevin Kelly is Senior Maverick at Wired magazine. He co-founded Wired in 1993, and served as its Executive Editor from its inception until 1999. He is also editor and publisher of the Cool Tools website, which gets half a million unique visitors per month. From 1984-1990 Kelly was publisher and editor of the Whole Earth Review, a journal of unorthodox technical news. He co-founded the ongoing Hackers' Conference, and was involved with the launch of the WELL, a pioneering online service started in 1985. He authored the best-selling New Rules for the New Economy and the classic book on decentralized emergent systems, Out of Control."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 353 reviews
February 23, 2015
In ‘What Technology Wants’ Kelly makes the case that the grand sweep of and direction of technology (which he terms the technium) shares parallels with evolutionary principles. He uses this analogy to suggest that there are universal laws that dictate the trajectory of technology and push it towards a predetermined goal: what technology ‘wants’ to achieve. Along the way, he paints a very happy picture of the thrust of technology – postulating that it will become ever more complex, beautiful, free, sentient, integrated, and will inevitably rise above the petty concerns of its primate origins – becoming the most enlightened of the “7 kingdoms of evolved organisms”.
I immediately took issue with this book. Not because the beginning is slow and dry, as others have rightly pointed out – (to setup his argument, Kelly bafflingly appears to have concluded that he must start with the The Big Bang). Instead, it is the frenetic approach that Kelly brings to his ‘reasonings’, which consist mostly of leaping wildly between subjects with impressive-sounding sound bites. More than once, his factoid-barrage approach left me feeling as though I were reading the back of a cereal box instead of a structured argument. His constant use fact tidbits was distracting and, worse, abstracting, since it was frequently impossible to figure out why a piece of information was included.
Unfortunately, it was only to get far worse when Kelly actually got to the meat of his argument (nearly 100 pages in). Kelly discusses at length his concept of why the ‘technicum’ should be considered to be like the 7th Kingdom of organisms. While the comparison is cute and can lead to some fun and even thought-provoking analogies, Kelly takes this argument seriously. This is a shame, because not only is the analogy a rather weak one (e.g. the environment of human culture and ideas that would provide the selective pressure for technology bears little resemblance to the actual environment of physics and predators), but Kelly displays a thoroughly shallow understanding of biological evolution in this book. So, the evolutionary arguments that Kelly presents to indicate that the technicum is ‘destined towards greatness’ are doubly flawed. Which is too bad, because the remaining 200 pages of the book are entirely based on reusing this analogy.
Complement sandwich time! The reader does at least get a well-deserved break when they stumble upon Chapter 11: Lessons of Amish Hackers. This chapter is genuinely interesting, insightful, and novel – so much so that I read it aloud to my friends. Nevermind for a moment that the main take-home message from this chapter seems to be that one is shrewd to be extremely wary of technology and adopt it only after decades of carefully observing its’ effects on your ‘guinea pig’ neighbors (which runs oddly counter to the ebullience for technology that Kelly displays in most of the rest of the book). This chapter gave me a new understanding and respect for the Amish culture, and was not at all what I expected to find buried halfway through the tome.
All good things must come to an end though… Pushing onward, the reader is tossed back into the cesspool of shallow thinking and Pollyanna-on-Christmas-sugar-high wishfulness that defines the work. Reading this book had the counterintuitive effect of making me more wary of technology as it made me realize that people like Jaron Lanier (of ‘You Are Not a Gadget’) aren’t joking when they speak of the new generation of ‘technology as religion’. An example, the whole concept of downloading one’s consciousness to a machine (both promoted as possible and advocated for at various points in What Technology Wants), speaks to an astounding lack of self-awareness and understanding of what it is to be human. So when Kelly reaches his eventual novelistic climax, waxing poetic on how technology will become an all-powerful God, you’ll have to pardon me if my shudders are not of ecstasy from my recent conversion.
I immediately took issue with this book. Not because the beginning is slow and dry, as others have rightly pointed out – (to setup his argument, Kelly bafflingly appears to have concluded that he must start with the The Big Bang). Instead, it is the frenetic approach that Kelly brings to his ‘reasonings’, which consist mostly of leaping wildly between subjects with impressive-sounding sound bites. More than once, his factoid-barrage approach left me feeling as though I were reading the back of a cereal box instead of a structured argument. His constant use fact tidbits was distracting and, worse, abstracting, since it was frequently impossible to figure out why a piece of information was included.
Unfortunately, it was only to get far worse when Kelly actually got to the meat of his argument (nearly 100 pages in). Kelly discusses at length his concept of why the ‘technicum’ should be considered to be like the 7th Kingdom of organisms. While the comparison is cute and can lead to some fun and even thought-provoking analogies, Kelly takes this argument seriously. This is a shame, because not only is the analogy a rather weak one (e.g. the environment of human culture and ideas that would provide the selective pressure for technology bears little resemblance to the actual environment of physics and predators), but Kelly displays a thoroughly shallow understanding of biological evolution in this book. So, the evolutionary arguments that Kelly presents to indicate that the technicum is ‘destined towards greatness’ are doubly flawed. Which is too bad, because the remaining 200 pages of the book are entirely based on reusing this analogy.
Complement sandwich time! The reader does at least get a well-deserved break when they stumble upon Chapter 11: Lessons of Amish Hackers. This chapter is genuinely interesting, insightful, and novel – so much so that I read it aloud to my friends. Nevermind for a moment that the main take-home message from this chapter seems to be that one is shrewd to be extremely wary of technology and adopt it only after decades of carefully observing its’ effects on your ‘guinea pig’ neighbors (which runs oddly counter to the ebullience for technology that Kelly displays in most of the rest of the book). This chapter gave me a new understanding and respect for the Amish culture, and was not at all what I expected to find buried halfway through the tome.
All good things must come to an end though… Pushing onward, the reader is tossed back into the cesspool of shallow thinking and Pollyanna-on-Christmas-sugar-high wishfulness that defines the work. Reading this book had the counterintuitive effect of making me more wary of technology as it made me realize that people like Jaron Lanier (of ‘You Are Not a Gadget’) aren’t joking when they speak of the new generation of ‘technology as religion’. An example, the whole concept of downloading one’s consciousness to a machine (both promoted as possible and advocated for at various points in What Technology Wants), speaks to an astounding lack of self-awareness and understanding of what it is to be human. So when Kelly reaches his eventual novelistic climax, waxing poetic on how technology will become an all-powerful God, you’ll have to pardon me if my shudders are not of ecstasy from my recent conversion.
Read
January 18, 2011This is a characteristic exercise in factoid-packed mega-optimism by the founding editor of Wired Magazine. The man whose final year of tenure as head of the magazine brought us the famous "Dow 36,000" article here tackles the role of technology in our lives, and how technology has what is, in essence, a life of its own. The future is just as bright, according to What Technology Wants, as it was in "Dow 36,000" -- but, of course, we know what came of that prediction.
I found the opening chapter to be one of the most infuriating things I've read in a long time, so dense is it with anthropomorphic mental hijinks. I highly recommend that if you elect to read this book, you do so by starting with the chapter on how Amish tinkerers are themselves a kind of hacker culture. That chapter provides a sense of grounding to the book, a lens of informed skepticism that is largely lacking elsewhere. It's absolutely fascinating stuff, and of all the books in this book's extensive bibliography, the ones on Amish life are the ones I'm most likely to read next. Not out of some incipient back-to-the-landness on my part, but because if the ideas on Amish-ness seem the most engaging here, then perhaps the source material for them is also engaging.
The book has a lot of interesting ideas, but they're ideas (digital sentience, for example) that I prefer to have filtered through consciously employed science fiction (and I don't mean that as a put-down; if this were all rewritten by Greg Egan, I'd probably love it).
My second biggest issue with the book after its anthropomorphic exuberance is how Kelly shifts his depth-of-field in ways that support his moment-by-moment sense of what he is describing. Toward the end, for example, he criticizes Wendell Berry for being "stuck on the cold, hard, yucky stuff," by which he seems to mean focusing too much on specific technological objects, rather than the broad sweep of technology. But Kelly himself has focuses on specifics himself throughout the book when it serves his rhetorical purpose.
I found the opening chapter to be one of the most infuriating things I've read in a long time, so dense is it with anthropomorphic mental hijinks. I highly recommend that if you elect to read this book, you do so by starting with the chapter on how Amish tinkerers are themselves a kind of hacker culture. That chapter provides a sense of grounding to the book, a lens of informed skepticism that is largely lacking elsewhere. It's absolutely fascinating stuff, and of all the books in this book's extensive bibliography, the ones on Amish life are the ones I'm most likely to read next. Not out of some incipient back-to-the-landness on my part, but because if the ideas on Amish-ness seem the most engaging here, then perhaps the source material for them is also engaging.
The book has a lot of interesting ideas, but they're ideas (digital sentience, for example) that I prefer to have filtered through consciously employed science fiction (and I don't mean that as a put-down; if this were all rewritten by Greg Egan, I'd probably love it).
My second biggest issue with the book after its anthropomorphic exuberance is how Kelly shifts his depth-of-field in ways that support his moment-by-moment sense of what he is describing. Toward the end, for example, he criticizes Wendell Berry for being "stuck on the cold, hard, yucky stuff," by which he seems to mean focusing too much on specific technological objects, rather than the broad sweep of technology. But Kelly himself has focuses on specifics himself throughout the book when it serves his rhetorical purpose.
October 7, 2012
This is a history and culture book as much as it's a "technology" or futurism book. It's one of the few books I've read in the last decade that really deserved to be a BOOK—something that commands your attention and requires immersive reading. The way you see the world is likely to change by the end, and if you're not already immersed in the tech industry (and likely feel yourself "above" this book), then I guarantee you'll be talking about and recommending it to others.
April 25, 2011
Although I disagree with many of Kelly's points, my main reasons for giving this book only two stars are its length--was it really necessary to recap the history of the universe from the Big Bang?--and Kelly's almost tautological optimism about technology. He consistently dismisses or downplays criticisms and negative aspects of the evolution of technology, developing from his basic premise--that technology is a self-sustaining and somewhat autonomous system--the tautological proposition that all technology is good because it creates more choices for humans. Kelly asserts that all choices are good choices, equating the choice among 85 different kinds of crackers in the average American supermarket with a young person's choice of vocation, or the choice to use a weapons technology with the choice to use civil disobedience. In the real world, not all choices are morally equivalent or equally meaningful. Not recommended.
March 12, 2011
Wow.
Kelly builds on arguments from Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, showing how technology is a continuation of biological evolution. Our minds are accelerating evolution using ideas instead of genes.
To me, the most beautiful section of this book was the beginning of Chapter 4, which describes the history of the universe through the lens of a single atom. For billions of years, atoms traversed the universe in solitude, never encountering anything else but the emptiness of space. The history of the universe is one where atoms encounter greater and greater change, from nothingness to being used in the running of a computer chip. Atoms just want to have fun, and technology allows them to hang out with a lot more atoms and have a lot more fun (I'm paraphrasing).
But the whole thing was amazing, if you are even remotely interested in what the future entails (and if you aren't, you should be) then you have to read this book.
Kelly builds on arguments from Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, showing how technology is a continuation of biological evolution. Our minds are accelerating evolution using ideas instead of genes.
To me, the most beautiful section of this book was the beginning of Chapter 4, which describes the history of the universe through the lens of a single atom. For billions of years, atoms traversed the universe in solitude, never encountering anything else but the emptiness of space. The history of the universe is one where atoms encounter greater and greater change, from nothingness to being used in the running of a computer chip. Atoms just want to have fun, and technology allows them to hang out with a lot more atoms and have a lot more fun (I'm paraphrasing).
But the whole thing was amazing, if you are even remotely interested in what the future entails (and if you aren't, you should be) then you have to read this book.
April 4, 2024
I read this book years ago and thought I would give it another go now that we’re in the crazy world of AI. I’ve always admired Kelly and loved his book “Inevitable.” This book is a thought-provoking journey into the essence of technology and its role in our lives.
Kelly begins by introducing the concept of the "technium," his term for the greater, global, massively interconnected system of technology. He argues that technology is an extension of life and, like any living system, has its own tendencies and needs. This idea is fascinating and forms the backbone of the book. Kelly's exploration of how technology evolves, almost organically, is pretty good. It pushed me r to think of technology not just as a collection of tools, but as a dynamic, almost living entity.
However, while Kelly's broad vision is appealing, there are moments where his arguments feel overly deterministic. He suggests that certain technological developments are inevitable, a view that downplays human agency and the complex socio-political factors that influence technological growth. This deterministic view can be a bit unsettling and may not sit well with everyone.
One of the book's strengths is its historical perspective. Kelly adeptly traces the evolution of technology from primitive tools to the high-tech wonders of the modern age. His discussion on how technology has shaped human evolution and vice versa offers such an interesting insight. This historical view not only provides context but also helps to ground some of Kelly's more abstract ideas.
On the flip side, Kelly's relentless optimism about technology might come off as a bit naive. He acknowledges the problems and challenges posed by technological advancement but tends to gloss over them quickly. For instance, issues like digital divide, privacy concerns, and the potential for technology to exacerbate inequality are mentioned but not deeply explored. This lack of critical examination of the negative aspects of technological growth is a big shortfall of the book.
Kelly's writing style is engaging and accessible, making complex ideas easy to grasp. This makes the book a good read for both tech enthusiasts and lay readers. His use of various anecdotes and examples helps in illustrating abstract concepts in a relatable way.
I hope that he will pen an updated version of this book and talk all about the weirdness that is the world of AI. This is going to change everything and I’d love to get his take on it.
While this book excels in presenting a grand vision of technology's evolution and its deep interconnection with human life, it falls short in critically examining the challenges and negative impacts of technological progress. Despite these shortcomings, it's a worthwhile read for anyone interested in understanding the broader implications of our technological world.
Kelly begins by introducing the concept of the "technium," his term for the greater, global, massively interconnected system of technology. He argues that technology is an extension of life and, like any living system, has its own tendencies and needs. This idea is fascinating and forms the backbone of the book. Kelly's exploration of how technology evolves, almost organically, is pretty good. It pushed me r to think of technology not just as a collection of tools, but as a dynamic, almost living entity.
However, while Kelly's broad vision is appealing, there are moments where his arguments feel overly deterministic. He suggests that certain technological developments are inevitable, a view that downplays human agency and the complex socio-political factors that influence technological growth. This deterministic view can be a bit unsettling and may not sit well with everyone.
One of the book's strengths is its historical perspective. Kelly adeptly traces the evolution of technology from primitive tools to the high-tech wonders of the modern age. His discussion on how technology has shaped human evolution and vice versa offers such an interesting insight. This historical view not only provides context but also helps to ground some of Kelly's more abstract ideas.
On the flip side, Kelly's relentless optimism about technology might come off as a bit naive. He acknowledges the problems and challenges posed by technological advancement but tends to gloss over them quickly. For instance, issues like digital divide, privacy concerns, and the potential for technology to exacerbate inequality are mentioned but not deeply explored. This lack of critical examination of the negative aspects of technological growth is a big shortfall of the book.
Kelly's writing style is engaging and accessible, making complex ideas easy to grasp. This makes the book a good read for both tech enthusiasts and lay readers. His use of various anecdotes and examples helps in illustrating abstract concepts in a relatable way.
I hope that he will pen an updated version of this book and talk all about the weirdness that is the world of AI. This is going to change everything and I’d love to get his take on it.
While this book excels in presenting a grand vision of technology's evolution and its deep interconnection with human life, it falls short in critically examining the challenges and negative impacts of technological progress. Despite these shortcomings, it's a worthwhile read for anyone interested in understanding the broader implications of our technological world.
March 24, 2011
I was surprised by how much of this book I actually _dis_liked. I've been following the technium blog for a while, and always remember liking it. The book certainly has parts I appreciated, and on the whole they probably mostly compensate for the negatives. But still. I think my dislike was primarily based on evidence-lacking claims, or things passed off too quickly as some sort of fact. Trying to sound technical doesn't make something correct. Graphs without axes scales don't help.
p3: "When the internet finally came along a few years later, it seemed almost Amish to me." <-- in a good way! He talks about the Amish a few times, how they interact with technology, and how they balance it with community.
p12: "...what I consider to be the essential quality of the technium: this idea of a self-reinforcing system of creation."
p26: "Language is... a magic mirror that reveals to the mind what the mind thinks... . Without the cerebral structure of language we couldn't access our own mental activity." <- dunno about this one. Just because we have a language doesn't mean creatures couldn't access their mental activity without one. And I don't know that language reveals what the mind thinks... there's a fair amount of lying your mind does.
p87: "Deforestation is a minor push compared to the tractor beam-like pull of the flickering lights that have brought 2.5 billion people into the cities in the last 60 years." <-- data to support this?
108: "There is an alphabet of 20 base symbols (amino acids) that make up every protein "word", which on average is, say, 100 symbols, or 100 bases, long... The total number of possible proteins that evolution could generate (or discover) is 100^20." <-- Now, I'm no mathematician...
121: This was funny, he talks about "[rewinding] the tape of life's history" and then has a parenthetical note describing what "rewind the tape" means for people who've grown up without such things. Apparently the phrase is, then, a "skeuonym".
146: talking about simultaneous discovery: "Because a lot of money swirls around Harry Potter we have discovered that, strange as it sounds, stories of boy wizards in magical schools with pet owls who enter their otherworlds through railway station platforms are inevitable at this point in Western culture." <- there were apparently a few other books published recently along similar lines.
154: quoting a Economist report about "technological leapfrogging": "Countries that failed to adopt old technologies are at a disadvantage when it comes to new ones." <- this is interesting
178: "Last, who you are in the richest sense of the word - your character, your spirit, what you do with your life - is determined by what you choose. ... You decide whether to speak the truth at any trial, even if you have a genetic or familial propensity to lie. You decide whether or not to risk befriending a stranger, no matter your genetic or cultural bias toward shyness. You decide beyond your inherent tendencies or conditioning." <- I guess. But isn't some cognitive research about decision making a little less certain on the subject? Lower processes determine things before you're aware of the decision?
233: "Voluntary simplicity is a possibility, an option, a choice that one should experience for at least part of one's life. I highly recommend elective poverty and minimalism as a fantastic education, not least because it will help you sort out your technology priorities. But I have observed that simplicity's fullest potential requires that one consider minimalism one phase of many (even if a recurring phase..."
233: "I am convinced that the Amish and minimites are more content and satisfied as people than the rest of us fast-forward urban technophiles" <- I remember this line annoying me because I think it's too easy to think that a lot of people think like you, what things like what you want.
233 (busy page, apparently): "I believe these two different routes for technological lifestyle - either optimizing contentment or optimizing choices - come down to very different ideas of what humans are to be." <- I guess when I see "optimizing choices" I seem to think "maximizing", and that replacement bothers me, because too many choices are bad (see, e.g. The Paradox of Choice).
236-7: "I may not tweet, watch TV, or use a laptop, but I certainly benefit from the effect of others who do. In that way I am not that different from the Amish, who benefit from the outsiders around them fully engaged with electricity, phones, and cars. But unlike individuals who opt out of individual technologies, Amish society indirectly constrains others as well as themselves. If we apply the ubiquity test - what happens if everyone does it - to the Amish way, the optimization of choice collapses. By constraining the suite of acceptable occupations and narrowing education, the Amish are holding back possibilities not just for their children by indirectly for all."
238: "I owe the Amish hackers a large debt because through their lives I now see the technium's dilemma very clearly: To maximize our own contentment, we seek the minimum amount of technology in our lives. Yet to maximize the contentment of others, we must maximize the amount of technology in the world. Indeed, we can only find our own minimal tools if others have created a sufficient maximum pool of options we can choose from. The dilemma remains in how we can personally minimize stuff close to us while trying to expand it globally."
252: "In short, crucial second-order effects are absent from small, precise experiments and sincere simulations of new technologies, and so an emerging technology must be tested in action and evaluated in real time. In other words, the risks of a particular technology have to be determined by trial and error in real life."
263: "However, the proper response to a lousy idea is not to stop thinking. It is to come up with a better idea. Indeed, we should prefer a bad idea to no ideas at all, because a bad idea can at least be reformed, while not thinking offers no hope."
291: "Technologies have asocial dimension beyond their mere mechanical performance. We adopt new technologies largely because of what they do for us, but also in part because of what they mean to us. Often we refuse to adopt technology for the same reason: because of how the avoidance reinforces or shapes our identity."
299: "The first few cameras were a novelty. their impact was primarily to fire painters from the job of recording the times. But as photography became easier to use, common cameras led to intense photojournalism a, and eventually they hatched movies and Hollywood alternatives realities. The diffusion of cameras cheap enough that every family had one in turn fed tourism, globalism, and international travel. The further diffusion of cameras into cell phones and digital devices birthed a universal sharing of images, the conviction that something is not real until it is captured on camera, and a sense that there is no significance outside of the camera view."
310: "Whenever you send an e-mail, invisible fancy algorithms on data servers decide the path your message will hop along in the global network in order to arrive with minimal congestion and maximum speed. Quantum choice probably does not play a role in these choices. Rather, a billion interacting deterministic factors influence it. Because unraveling these factors is an intractable problem, these choices are in practice free-will decisions of the network, and the internet is making billions of them every day." <- this one bothered me. I'm not physicist, but quantum effects have to bubble up to everything else, right? While we don't understand them, it doesn't mean they don't play a role in more macro-scale happenings. And that last sentence really gets me. "This problem's really hard, so we'll call it free will". F that.
311-317: I think I did like most of this section on mutualism. Co-dependence, working together...
313: "Somehow, being totally dependent on technology to add and subtract doesn't spook us, but being dependent on the web to remember facts sometimes does"
327: "A slime-mold colony can solve the shortest distance to food in a maze, much like a rat." <- looking up videos... now.
348: "How can technology make a person better? Only in this way: by providing each person with chances. A chance to excel at the unique mixture of talents he or she was born with, a chance to encounter new ideas and new minds, a chance to be different from his or her parents, a chance to create something his or her own."
351: "A world with more opportunities produces more people capable of producing yet more opportunities."
p3: "When the internet finally came along a few years later, it seemed almost Amish to me." <-- in a good way! He talks about the Amish a few times, how they interact with technology, and how they balance it with community.
p12: "...what I consider to be the essential quality of the technium: this idea of a self-reinforcing system of creation."
p26: "Language is... a magic mirror that reveals to the mind what the mind thinks... . Without the cerebral structure of language we couldn't access our own mental activity." <- dunno about this one. Just because we have a language doesn't mean creatures couldn't access their mental activity without one. And I don't know that language reveals what the mind thinks... there's a fair amount of lying your mind does.
p87: "Deforestation is a minor push compared to the tractor beam-like pull of the flickering lights that have brought 2.5 billion people into the cities in the last 60 years." <-- data to support this?
108: "There is an alphabet of 20 base symbols (amino acids) that make up every protein "word", which on average is, say, 100 symbols, or 100 bases, long... The total number of possible proteins that evolution could generate (or discover) is 100^20." <-- Now, I'm no mathematician...
121: This was funny, he talks about "[rewinding] the tape of life's history" and then has a parenthetical note describing what "rewind the tape" means for people who've grown up without such things. Apparently the phrase is, then, a "skeuonym".
146: talking about simultaneous discovery: "Because a lot of money swirls around Harry Potter we have discovered that, strange as it sounds, stories of boy wizards in magical schools with pet owls who enter their otherworlds through railway station platforms are inevitable at this point in Western culture." <- there were apparently a few other books published recently along similar lines.
154: quoting a Economist report about "technological leapfrogging": "Countries that failed to adopt old technologies are at a disadvantage when it comes to new ones." <- this is interesting
178: "Last, who you are in the richest sense of the word - your character, your spirit, what you do with your life - is determined by what you choose. ... You decide whether to speak the truth at any trial, even if you have a genetic or familial propensity to lie. You decide whether or not to risk befriending a stranger, no matter your genetic or cultural bias toward shyness. You decide beyond your inherent tendencies or conditioning." <- I guess. But isn't some cognitive research about decision making a little less certain on the subject? Lower processes determine things before you're aware of the decision?
233: "Voluntary simplicity is a possibility, an option, a choice that one should experience for at least part of one's life. I highly recommend elective poverty and minimalism as a fantastic education, not least because it will help you sort out your technology priorities. But I have observed that simplicity's fullest potential requires that one consider minimalism one phase of many (even if a recurring phase..."
233: "I am convinced that the Amish and minimites are more content and satisfied as people than the rest of us fast-forward urban technophiles" <- I remember this line annoying me because I think it's too easy to think that a lot of people think like you, what things like what you want.
233 (busy page, apparently): "I believe these two different routes for technological lifestyle - either optimizing contentment or optimizing choices - come down to very different ideas of what humans are to be." <- I guess when I see "optimizing choices" I seem to think "maximizing", and that replacement bothers me, because too many choices are bad (see, e.g. The Paradox of Choice).
236-7: "I may not tweet, watch TV, or use a laptop, but I certainly benefit from the effect of others who do. In that way I am not that different from the Amish, who benefit from the outsiders around them fully engaged with electricity, phones, and cars. But unlike individuals who opt out of individual technologies, Amish society indirectly constrains others as well as themselves. If we apply the ubiquity test - what happens if everyone does it - to the Amish way, the optimization of choice collapses. By constraining the suite of acceptable occupations and narrowing education, the Amish are holding back possibilities not just for their children by indirectly for all."
238: "I owe the Amish hackers a large debt because through their lives I now see the technium's dilemma very clearly: To maximize our own contentment, we seek the minimum amount of technology in our lives. Yet to maximize the contentment of others, we must maximize the amount of technology in the world. Indeed, we can only find our own minimal tools if others have created a sufficient maximum pool of options we can choose from. The dilemma remains in how we can personally minimize stuff close to us while trying to expand it globally."
252: "In short, crucial second-order effects are absent from small, precise experiments and sincere simulations of new technologies, and so an emerging technology must be tested in action and evaluated in real time. In other words, the risks of a particular technology have to be determined by trial and error in real life."
263: "However, the proper response to a lousy idea is not to stop thinking. It is to come up with a better idea. Indeed, we should prefer a bad idea to no ideas at all, because a bad idea can at least be reformed, while not thinking offers no hope."
291: "Technologies have asocial dimension beyond their mere mechanical performance. We adopt new technologies largely because of what they do for us, but also in part because of what they mean to us. Often we refuse to adopt technology for the same reason: because of how the avoidance reinforces or shapes our identity."
299: "The first few cameras were a novelty. their impact was primarily to fire painters from the job of recording the times. But as photography became easier to use, common cameras led to intense photojournalism a, and eventually they hatched movies and Hollywood alternatives realities. The diffusion of cameras cheap enough that every family had one in turn fed tourism, globalism, and international travel. The further diffusion of cameras into cell phones and digital devices birthed a universal sharing of images, the conviction that something is not real until it is captured on camera, and a sense that there is no significance outside of the camera view."
310: "Whenever you send an e-mail, invisible fancy algorithms on data servers decide the path your message will hop along in the global network in order to arrive with minimal congestion and maximum speed. Quantum choice probably does not play a role in these choices. Rather, a billion interacting deterministic factors influence it. Because unraveling these factors is an intractable problem, these choices are in practice free-will decisions of the network, and the internet is making billions of them every day." <- this one bothered me. I'm not physicist, but quantum effects have to bubble up to everything else, right? While we don't understand them, it doesn't mean they don't play a role in more macro-scale happenings. And that last sentence really gets me. "This problem's really hard, so we'll call it free will". F that.
311-317: I think I did like most of this section on mutualism. Co-dependence, working together...
313: "Somehow, being totally dependent on technology to add and subtract doesn't spook us, but being dependent on the web to remember facts sometimes does"
327: "A slime-mold colony can solve the shortest distance to food in a maze, much like a rat." <- looking up videos... now.
348: "How can technology make a person better? Only in this way: by providing each person with chances. A chance to excel at the unique mixture of talents he or she was born with, a chance to encounter new ideas and new minds, a chance to be different from his or her parents, a chance to create something his or her own."
351: "A world with more opportunities produces more people capable of producing yet more opportunities."
January 24, 2011
What Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly
Kevin Kelly views technology as a natural organic living process. He calls it the technium. He views it as being part of human evolution. I found the ideas to be fascinating but overly anthropomorphic. He gave living qualities to stone, steel, spoons, bricks, and computers. There is both a humanizing and a dehumanizing aspect to this writing.
The humanizing aspect is a view of increased possibilities, more opportunities to create greater freedoms and greater choice. The author shows how machines improve our lives and expand our possibilities. He also includes systems of thought like science, art, and law as part of technology. He describes how technology evolved as we evolved from the stone age to modern cities.
Where it fails and seems a bit dehumanizing is his taking a picture of nature that seems very utilitarian. He describes that eventually there will be no waste with biophilic technology. I think this lessens nature and makes it machine like. He even claims the Amish are part of the technium because of how they use technology. This was a bit far fetched to me. I don't like to think of myself as evolving in a similar way to a machine.
The unabomber, Ted Kaczynski's anti-technology views are gone into. This was quite daring to do. Kevin Kelly does not shy from tackling some opposing view points. He even talks about primitivism. This makes the book different.
There is a deeply philosophical bent to the writing. I can recognize some of the philosophy. Some of it is very much at the edge of high technology. He seems to be trodding a slightly different path than transhumanism where the idea is that we will become more than human when we integrate with machines. Kevin Kelly also does not argue for the singularity where machines become smarter than humans. Machines are a different kind of intelligence than human intelligence. His ultimate goal is to open infinite games for people, more choice, more freedom, more opportunities through technology.
Read this book it will open your mind to new ideas. It makes you think. Kevin Kelly helped launched Wired Magazine. His website is http://www.kk.org/
The book is fairly dense reading. It includes notes, an annotated reading list, black and white photographs, charts, and an index. It is very much a popular science title.
Kevin Kelly views technology as a natural organic living process. He calls it the technium. He views it as being part of human evolution. I found the ideas to be fascinating but overly anthropomorphic. He gave living qualities to stone, steel, spoons, bricks, and computers. There is both a humanizing and a dehumanizing aspect to this writing.
The humanizing aspect is a view of increased possibilities, more opportunities to create greater freedoms and greater choice. The author shows how machines improve our lives and expand our possibilities. He also includes systems of thought like science, art, and law as part of technology. He describes how technology evolved as we evolved from the stone age to modern cities.
Where it fails and seems a bit dehumanizing is his taking a picture of nature that seems very utilitarian. He describes that eventually there will be no waste with biophilic technology. I think this lessens nature and makes it machine like. He even claims the Amish are part of the technium because of how they use technology. This was a bit far fetched to me. I don't like to think of myself as evolving in a similar way to a machine.
The unabomber, Ted Kaczynski's anti-technology views are gone into. This was quite daring to do. Kevin Kelly does not shy from tackling some opposing view points. He even talks about primitivism. This makes the book different.
There is a deeply philosophical bent to the writing. I can recognize some of the philosophy. Some of it is very much at the edge of high technology. He seems to be trodding a slightly different path than transhumanism where the idea is that we will become more than human when we integrate with machines. Kevin Kelly also does not argue for the singularity where machines become smarter than humans. Machines are a different kind of intelligence than human intelligence. His ultimate goal is to open infinite games for people, more choice, more freedom, more opportunities through technology.
Read this book it will open your mind to new ideas. It makes you think. Kevin Kelly helped launched Wired Magazine. His website is http://www.kk.org/
The book is fairly dense reading. It includes notes, an annotated reading list, black and white photographs, charts, and an index. It is very much a popular science title.
June 14, 2012
How can a book about technology have such interesting parts about fire and agriculture, and such boring parts about computers and cell phones? He's really into the Amish.
August 15, 2016
Kevin Kelly is fascinated by the cosmos, nature, humanity and technology. But the primary focus of the narrative is contained in the book’s title, ‘What Technology Wants.’ But is it a declarative and interrogative statement? For me it turned out to be both.
Kelly begins with the cosmic singularity that became the Big Bang, from which all that existed, is, or will be, originates. While denying Intelligent Design he believes that there is an imperative operating which instigates and lays the foundations and conditions for biologic life and even sentience. Taking it one step further, arising out of life and sentience must come technology. At the pinnacle of these phases is the one we currently inhabit, the Technium. The Technium is the sum total of all technology, including the ‘soft’ elements such as computer code. If we are but a stepping stone toward some undiscovered purpose of the Technium, what might that be?
To demonstrate the inevitability of this cosmic drive he references the Goldilocks Principle - that our planet has just the right combination of conditions to support biological and intelligent life. Beyond that he spotlights the many times that critical developmental milestones in human history have occurred almost simultaneously in different parts of the world or from the minds of different people. For instance, the transition from hunter-gatherer cultures to agrarian to villages, cities and empires, extending from China to the Fertile Crescent, the Nile Valley, Central and South America. Pointing out that Newton was not the only person to reveal the intricacies of calculus, Darwin not the only one to see evolution at work, Bell was actually rather lucky to be credited with inventing the telephone. Other examples abound. In other words, there seems to be an inevitability in the march of technological progress.
Beyond parallel cultural developments, another tendency seems to be manifesting itself over time, expanding choices, allowing individuals ever more avenues to explore and exploit to their individual benefit and that of humanity in general. In support of this Kelly cites individuals who, if born in other times, would have wasted their enormous talents and insights. If Einstein had been born in the 17th and not the 19th century the mathematical nor scientific groundwork would have been conducive to the fertile products of his imagination. Had Steve Jobs or Bill Gates been born but a couple, or even a single, generation before where would their talents have placed them. The conjunction of time and individual are important. This is not to say that others wouldn’t have filled their shoes, but not them. The Technium maximizes the value of individual genius by allowing greater choices and appropriate areas in which to apply their talents - and it does this on a lesser scale to everyone.
The developments of Artificial Intelligence and robotics are symptomatic of the Technium at work. Kelly doesn’t explore the ultimate expressions of these technologies, only that it will be more positive than negative - which is a recurrent observation applied to all trends over time.
He is a positivist in the sense that progress, despite any collateral damage, or unintended consequences, cannot be, and should not be, stifled or stopped.
What bothers me most about this work is that he has no real problem of where his Technium may be taking us, that it is essentially, a force of nature which cannot be denied. Should it involve the ultimate extinction of humanity, he seems to be saying that we should not be too bothered, after all what will come will be better. Better for whom?
Kelly begins with the cosmic singularity that became the Big Bang, from which all that existed, is, or will be, originates. While denying Intelligent Design he believes that there is an imperative operating which instigates and lays the foundations and conditions for biologic life and even sentience. Taking it one step further, arising out of life and sentience must come technology. At the pinnacle of these phases is the one we currently inhabit, the Technium. The Technium is the sum total of all technology, including the ‘soft’ elements such as computer code. If we are but a stepping stone toward some undiscovered purpose of the Technium, what might that be?
To demonstrate the inevitability of this cosmic drive he references the Goldilocks Principle - that our planet has just the right combination of conditions to support biological and intelligent life. Beyond that he spotlights the many times that critical developmental milestones in human history have occurred almost simultaneously in different parts of the world or from the minds of different people. For instance, the transition from hunter-gatherer cultures to agrarian to villages, cities and empires, extending from China to the Fertile Crescent, the Nile Valley, Central and South America. Pointing out that Newton was not the only person to reveal the intricacies of calculus, Darwin not the only one to see evolution at work, Bell was actually rather lucky to be credited with inventing the telephone. Other examples abound. In other words, there seems to be an inevitability in the march of technological progress.
Beyond parallel cultural developments, another tendency seems to be manifesting itself over time, expanding choices, allowing individuals ever more avenues to explore and exploit to their individual benefit and that of humanity in general. In support of this Kelly cites individuals who, if born in other times, would have wasted their enormous talents and insights. If Einstein had been born in the 17th and not the 19th century the mathematical nor scientific groundwork would have been conducive to the fertile products of his imagination. Had Steve Jobs or Bill Gates been born but a couple, or even a single, generation before where would their talents have placed them. The conjunction of time and individual are important. This is not to say that others wouldn’t have filled their shoes, but not them. The Technium maximizes the value of individual genius by allowing greater choices and appropriate areas in which to apply their talents - and it does this on a lesser scale to everyone.
The developments of Artificial Intelligence and robotics are symptomatic of the Technium at work. Kelly doesn’t explore the ultimate expressions of these technologies, only that it will be more positive than negative - which is a recurrent observation applied to all trends over time.
He is a positivist in the sense that progress, despite any collateral damage, or unintended consequences, cannot be, and should not be, stifled or stopped.
What bothers me most about this work is that he has no real problem of where his Technium may be taking us, that it is essentially, a force of nature which cannot be denied. Should it involve the ultimate extinction of humanity, he seems to be saying that we should not be too bothered, after all what will come will be better. Better for whom?
October 10, 2015
There are One Big Idea books, and there are Lots Of Ideas books. "What Technology Wants" is clearly based on One Big Idea.
Kevin Kelly's "What Technology Wants" begins with where any good narrative about technology should: the Amish. Kelly apparently spent some time living with the Amish, and then went off to be the executive editor of Wired magazine for its first seven years. The contrast between the two makes him well placed to evaluate technology as a whole, and its impact on humans.
He has decided that technology is not just a suite of different items and techniques, any more than a human is just a suite of molecules and reactions. It is the Technium, a singular noun, and it is an entity all to itself. It grows, it evolves, and as the title suggests, it has wants.
Just as life can be thought of as Life, or the Biosphere, a web of organisms that has a...life of its own, so Kelly considers the Technium. It is a Big Idea, and perhaps a bit of a fuzzy one, but he does get down to brass tacks in a few places.
One bit I particularly liked is where he takes a page of agricultural implements from the 1894-95 Montgomery Ward catalog, and decides to find out how many of them can be bought online today. The question he had in mind was, what is the extinction rate of technology? Agricultural practices have changed a lot since 1895, more than city living even, so it might overestimate the extinction rate, but it would still be a useful test.
The answer, of course, was that none of it was extinct. Pick almost anything from a late 19th century catalog, and you can find someone using the power of the Internet to sell it to you, if you want. To double-check his conclusion, I went looking on the Internet for an "Aurignacian burin", a kind of flint scraping tool from about 45,000 years ago, and found quickly that you can order them online. I guess it's true, technology may wax and wane, but not much goes extinct.
Kelly's conclusion is that technology wants more options, more niches, more diversity, more thoughts and specializations, more more more. It does not aim at gray and drab uniformity; it aims at a sensory-overloading explosion of options and possibilities. Want to butcher aurochs with a flint scraper? Well, the auroch might be hard to find, but the scrapers are available. Want to farm like it's a hundred years ago, with the Amish? The tools are available, and the Amish population has been growing faster than the overall population for a while now. Want to live in a city of ten million people, working in a job of the sort that is awkward to explain at parties because it's so hyper-specialized most people can't even understand what it is? You can do that too. It's what technology wants, whether it's what we want or not.
I'm not sure if it's a better future than the one many doomsayer scientists say we're headed for, but it's less depressing to think about. I finished the book easily. Is it more accurate? I cannot trust myself to make an objective judgement, but we'll know soon enough.
Kevin Kelly's "What Technology Wants" begins with where any good narrative about technology should: the Amish. Kelly apparently spent some time living with the Amish, and then went off to be the executive editor of Wired magazine for its first seven years. The contrast between the two makes him well placed to evaluate technology as a whole, and its impact on humans.
He has decided that technology is not just a suite of different items and techniques, any more than a human is just a suite of molecules and reactions. It is the Technium, a singular noun, and it is an entity all to itself. It grows, it evolves, and as the title suggests, it has wants.
Just as life can be thought of as Life, or the Biosphere, a web of organisms that has a...life of its own, so Kelly considers the Technium. It is a Big Idea, and perhaps a bit of a fuzzy one, but he does get down to brass tacks in a few places.
One bit I particularly liked is where he takes a page of agricultural implements from the 1894-95 Montgomery Ward catalog, and decides to find out how many of them can be bought online today. The question he had in mind was, what is the extinction rate of technology? Agricultural practices have changed a lot since 1895, more than city living even, so it might overestimate the extinction rate, but it would still be a useful test.
The answer, of course, was that none of it was extinct. Pick almost anything from a late 19th century catalog, and you can find someone using the power of the Internet to sell it to you, if you want. To double-check his conclusion, I went looking on the Internet for an "Aurignacian burin", a kind of flint scraping tool from about 45,000 years ago, and found quickly that you can order them online. I guess it's true, technology may wax and wane, but not much goes extinct.
Kelly's conclusion is that technology wants more options, more niches, more diversity, more thoughts and specializations, more more more. It does not aim at gray and drab uniformity; it aims at a sensory-overloading explosion of options and possibilities. Want to butcher aurochs with a flint scraper? Well, the auroch might be hard to find, but the scrapers are available. Want to farm like it's a hundred years ago, with the Amish? The tools are available, and the Amish population has been growing faster than the overall population for a while now. Want to live in a city of ten million people, working in a job of the sort that is awkward to explain at parties because it's so hyper-specialized most people can't even understand what it is? You can do that too. It's what technology wants, whether it's what we want or not.
I'm not sure if it's a better future than the one many doomsayer scientists say we're headed for, but it's less depressing to think about. I finished the book easily. Is it more accurate? I cannot trust myself to make an objective judgement, but we'll know soon enough.
April 10, 2020
Just started to read it yesterday. So many good insights into history of technology, how it makes us human and how human, in fact, is being used by technology (actually vice versa). Each new innovation comes only when there is an appropriate environment - proper tools and base of ideas - that guides birth of new technology. For Kelly (each) technology is like a species that "instead of expressing the work of genes (..) expresses ideas." These species follow evolution growth, some species die (become obsolescent), just like nature we know. I am already acquainted by ideas of McLuhan and Koert van Mensvort (Next Nature), this book is like a match that sets on fire new perception. "Technium" as the evolutionary organism that is physical extension of human mind. Technium and humankind both depend on each other (co-evolutionary relations).
April 17, 2025
All I really took away was that technology evolves like its own biological unit in lock step with humanity and some Amish people have phones and like to roller skate.
August 12, 2014
Kevin Kelly is an optimist. You can't escape that conclusion once you put down the book.
As a reasonably incompetent technologist I agree with much of what he says when he speaks of the capability of technology to do good - increase our choices, liberate individuals who recognize it as a way to something new, empower struggles and revolutions (Newspapers have changed dynasties, even Twitter was an outlet for the Arab Spring to exchange voices) and can characterize an entire generation and society by becoming such a deep part of it that it becomes a necessity rather than an option, like mobile phones today.
My beef with the book is the attempt from the author to try linking the evolution of the technium as he calls it, with the biological one - in fact he stretches all the way back to the big bang a few times - and giving it the same characteristics, such as random mutation and natural selection, that propel biological evolution. He spends a large part of the book on this, but in the end I don't see why it was necessary to do it. His arguments are well presented, and makes for interesting reading, but in the end it at best comes across as an anthropomorphic thought experiment.
It is an optimist's book. The subtitle sort of puts it in perspective, Technology is a living force that can expand our living potential - if we listen to what it wants. I can't say I fully agree with all of it, and after all much of technology is used to game the system and control people too, but Kelly argues that it isn't technology that does it but the human who wants to (guns don't kill people, people kill people) and that as technology becomes more ubiquitous and invisible in our lives it will start dictating what the normal behavior is. He believes this normal will be a peaceful one because it is the one with maximum potential and an evolutionary process will sort itself out to head in that direction eventually. I'm not entirely convinced of this.
Anyway, not a half bad book. Could have been half the number of pages though.
As a reasonably incompetent technologist I agree with much of what he says when he speaks of the capability of technology to do good - increase our choices, liberate individuals who recognize it as a way to something new, empower struggles and revolutions (Newspapers have changed dynasties, even Twitter was an outlet for the Arab Spring to exchange voices) and can characterize an entire generation and society by becoming such a deep part of it that it becomes a necessity rather than an option, like mobile phones today.
My beef with the book is the attempt from the author to try linking the evolution of the technium as he calls it, with the biological one - in fact he stretches all the way back to the big bang a few times - and giving it the same characteristics, such as random mutation and natural selection, that propel biological evolution. He spends a large part of the book on this, but in the end I don't see why it was necessary to do it. His arguments are well presented, and makes for interesting reading, but in the end it at best comes across as an anthropomorphic thought experiment.
It is an optimist's book. The subtitle sort of puts it in perspective, Technology is a living force that can expand our living potential - if we listen to what it wants. I can't say I fully agree with all of it, and after all much of technology is used to game the system and control people too, but Kelly argues that it isn't technology that does it but the human who wants to (guns don't kill people, people kill people) and that as technology becomes more ubiquitous and invisible in our lives it will start dictating what the normal behavior is. He believes this normal will be a peaceful one because it is the one with maximum potential and an evolutionary process will sort itself out to head in that direction eventually. I'm not entirely convinced of this.
Anyway, not a half bad book. Could have been half the number of pages though.
July 28, 2017
This book had been on my to-read pile for a while. I don’t know why I waited so long to read it, maybe because having read quick descriptions of the Technium on blogs had so far been enough. Well, I learned much more reading the whole thing.
I understand critics: it may go in different directions, be biased towards an optimistic view of the future of tech, be redundant at time. But, it was a joy to read.
It was not a monograph I was reading, but an opinion piece where one can feel the author’s knowledge and enthusiasm. It was like listening to the author’s monologue at a bar, nodding at times, raising an eyebrow at others, often scratching one’s head to develop some new thoughts on the topic of technology as the 7th kingdom of life. I particularly enjoyed the section on synchronicity of discoveries in engineering, science and literature, as well as the sections on the Unabomber and the Amish. Overall a great read, which I highly recommend. The bias towards an optimistic vision of the future is easily forgiven as the negative sides are at least, partially, mentioned as well. The idea that tech starts in a crappy way (cities as slums, polluting machines) and evolves into something beautiful (city’s architecture, efficient machines) pushes to reflection. Includes many interesting tidbits too, as well as references to other books and articles to read.
I feel it started to lose steam towards the last 100 pages. Because of the bias, should be complemented with some reading from the other side of the spectrum.
I understand critics: it may go in different directions, be biased towards an optimistic view of the future of tech, be redundant at time. But, it was a joy to read.
It was not a monograph I was reading, but an opinion piece where one can feel the author’s knowledge and enthusiasm. It was like listening to the author’s monologue at a bar, nodding at times, raising an eyebrow at others, often scratching one’s head to develop some new thoughts on the topic of technology as the 7th kingdom of life. I particularly enjoyed the section on synchronicity of discoveries in engineering, science and literature, as well as the sections on the Unabomber and the Amish. Overall a great read, which I highly recommend. The bias towards an optimistic vision of the future is easily forgiven as the negative sides are at least, partially, mentioned as well. The idea that tech starts in a crappy way (cities as slums, polluting machines) and evolves into something beautiful (city’s architecture, efficient machines) pushes to reflection. Includes many interesting tidbits too, as well as references to other books and articles to read.
I feel it started to lose steam towards the last 100 pages. Because of the bias, should be complemented with some reading from the other side of the spectrum.
March 28, 2016
I loved this book!! Dog-eared every other page. Fascinating exploration of evolutionary science and in tandem, the evolution of technology. Kelly asserts that "the technium" (AI, technology tools, web, etc.) has an imperative and momentum all its own to evolve, regardless of our thoughts on the matter.
On the Pivot front, loved this line: "Yes, life has gained more ways to adapt, but what is really changing is its evolvability—its propensity and agility to create change. Think of this as changeability . . . This exhilarating self-acceleration resembles the mythical snake Uroboros grabbing its own tail and turning itself inside out. It is rife with paradox—and promise." Looking forward to his forthcoming book in June, The Inevitable: Understanding the 12 Technological Forces that Will Shape Our Future (http://amzn.to/1ogOpfY).
On the Pivot front, loved this line: "Yes, life has gained more ways to adapt, but what is really changing is its evolvability—its propensity and agility to create change. Think of this as changeability . . . This exhilarating self-acceleration resembles the mythical snake Uroboros grabbing its own tail and turning itself inside out. It is rife with paradox—and promise." Looking forward to his forthcoming book in June, The Inevitable: Understanding the 12 Technological Forces that Will Shape Our Future (http://amzn.to/1ogOpfY).
August 26, 2012
Fantástico. Ele traça um paralelo bem informado entre a evolução biológica e o desenvolvimento da tecnologia. Apresentou antes (cronologicamente) o conceito de mistura e avanço de idéias tecnológicas que o Matt Ridley discute em The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves.
Dá ótimas noções de como a tecnologia se torna popular e comum, e como deixa de ser considerada tecnologia no processo (não pensamos em tijolos como artefatos tecnológicos). Também gostei muito da noção de que temos que pensar em como uma tecnologia afeta o mundo em diferentes escalas, uma coisa são 1000 pessoas com internet, outra é 1 bilhão.
Dá ótimas noções de como a tecnologia se torna popular e comum, e como deixa de ser considerada tecnologia no processo (não pensamos em tijolos como artefatos tecnológicos). Também gostei muito da noção de que temos que pensar em como uma tecnologia afeta o mundo em diferentes escalas, uma coisa são 1000 pessoas com internet, outra é 1 bilhão.
Read
January 7, 2019This. This book was important. I will need to go line by line on this one.
The Technium is mind blowing.
Between Mukhergee and Harari Kelly swoops in with some really wonderful thoughts.
I will re-read in the future. And not kidding, will go line by line and draw connections, models, correlations and inferences.
The Technium is mind blowing.
Between Mukhergee and Harari Kelly swoops in with some really wonderful thoughts.
I will re-read in the future. And not kidding, will go line by line and draw connections, models, correlations and inferences.
March 27, 2022
The Good: Conscientious adoption of scientific progress
The Bad: Written by an old hippie with mystical leanings
The Literary: Surprisingly, some examples from art and literature
Technology is coming for us whether we want it or not, and we can all agree that technology is out of our individual control. In this book, Kevin Kelly argues that technology is not just a more efficient engine or a smaller computer chip, but that technology as a whole, as a concept, will continue to evolve and is outside of humanity's collective control. Technology wants, and knowing what technology wants will allow us to better prepare ourselves for the future to come.
We stand on the shoulders of giants. The technology that surrounds us today is built upon the successes and failures of our predecessors. On the whole, the advancement of technology is a good thing. Primarily, in the last 300 years, it's provided better health, longer life, and gives us more choices, like to choice to relocate, educate oneself, or have children. My home is filled with computers and kitchen gadgets that make my life easier, and I can't even imagine what life would be like without a toilet or washing machine.
But sometimes technology is overwhelming. Kelly investigates two different examples of how people try to fight it's onslaught. One is the outright antagonistic approach of the Unibomber; one is the ultra-slow adoption of the Amish. Kelly argues that extreme prohibition is ineffective and even the Unibomber's supposedly off-the-grid shack was filled with items purchased from Walmart. Kelly is fascinated at the off-grid lifestyle and moderated approach towards adoption of the Amish, though he admits it's too far away from the comforts to which he is accustomed.
I agree that we live in a world of technology that we can't escape, and that existing technology will only continue to improve, whereas new and often troublesome technologies will continue to be invented. I agree that as individuals we need to first become aware of our relationship with technology, conscious to its pervasiveness, and consider nuanced approaches to how it best serves us as individuals and as a society.
There are so may good questions that this book spurs. When is a technology a basic human right (shelter, clean water, education), and when is it detrimental? Do we have a responsibility to our creations, fellow humans, or our planet? Is the constant access to social media making us at best less creative or at worst inventing new mental disorders? Are the unknown risks of a new technology like GMOs worth it if we can feed more people? What about the unknown risks of a vaccine that protects our society's weakest members? How will we know when the internet becomes sentient, or that it hasn't already? If it does, what rights will it have? I really enjoy thinking about these concepts and hope others do as well.
But let's start on what I didn't like about this book and why I'm giving it such a low star rating.
Kelly begins with the central argument that technology is inevitable. Similar inventions occurred at the same time, independently, often on opposite continents, whether ancient agriculture or, more recently, light bulbs. As each new technology appears it fuels the next logical step. Generally speaking, I agree, you can't have cars until you have the combustion engine.
However, Kelly spends a large section of the book comparing the inevitable progress of technology to biological evolution, specifically using convergent evolution as the basis for his argument. Convergent evolution suggests that instead of new mutations arising from random chance, distantly related organisms evolve similar traits to adapt to similar external pressures. Unfortunately, Kelly does not describe or define convergent evolution in those terms. Instead, he uses phrases that include, "Rather, evolution…has an inherent direction, shaped by the nature of matter and energy," and "Again and again evolution returns to a few solutions that work,"which imply that evolution is leading somewhere on purpose. Kelly's prose is full of these mystical anthropomorphic interpretations.
Not being a scientist himself, Kelly acknowledges that most scientists find the concept of "inevitable" disagreeable when applied to evolution, but then proceeds to make his own case, using a few studies and quotes from those who disagree with classical Darwinism. I'm not saying some ideas of convergent evolution aren't possible, but I find it a little backwards that Kelly uses it to prop up his own arguments that technology is also evolving convergently. Why not just just discuss technology on its own by it's own merits? Surely biology and technology each have individual concerns and constraints int he world?
In fact, Kelly proposes technology to be the 7th kingdom of organisms. It's a neat and cute idea, and useful for starting conversation, but he takes himself seriously. He concedes that it's not ideal to anthropomorphize technology, but then proceeds to do just that for the entire book (see the title again). His religious fervor at the beginning and end—at which point he discusses that technology is the next stage in evolution, and that our AI offspring are the closet we'll ever see to God—all reveal that his goal is one of mysticism and philosophy, not science.
Let me share one specific example. In the following quote, Kelly takes the kernel of a scientific idea, specifically the hypothesis of panspermia, an untestable hypothesis that suggests all life on earth did not originate on Earth, but instead that DNA was carried to Earth by way of a celestial body (ie a comet). He proceeds to dramatically embellish, anthropomorphize, phallicize in one ill-informed sentence: "Perhaps DNA was cleverly crafted by superior intelligences in white lab coats and shotgunned into the universe to naturally seed empty planets over billions of years?"
In addition, Kelly's persuasive approach is to frenetically throw facts around, leaping between subjects with impressive-sounding bits, shifting his focus and examples, both scientific and historical, to support his current point. The overwhelming repetition of disconnected facts disregards any nuance that would cast uncertainty on his points, including the concept of fitness landscapes in evolution. It's no surprise then that he coins he own term, the technium, the meaning of which bloats as every chapter progresses so that it eventually encompasses any concept of order, control, or predictability in all of space and time.
Recommended for modern ludites, those looking to limit technology in their daily lives. Skip to the Unibomber and Amish chapters!
The Bad: Written by an old hippie with mystical leanings
The Literary: Surprisingly, some examples from art and literature
Technology is coming for us whether we want it or not, and we can all agree that technology is out of our individual control. In this book, Kevin Kelly argues that technology is not just a more efficient engine or a smaller computer chip, but that technology as a whole, as a concept, will continue to evolve and is outside of humanity's collective control. Technology wants, and knowing what technology wants will allow us to better prepare ourselves for the future to come.
We stand on the shoulders of giants. The technology that surrounds us today is built upon the successes and failures of our predecessors. On the whole, the advancement of technology is a good thing. Primarily, in the last 300 years, it's provided better health, longer life, and gives us more choices, like to choice to relocate, educate oneself, or have children. My home is filled with computers and kitchen gadgets that make my life easier, and I can't even imagine what life would be like without a toilet or washing machine.
But sometimes technology is overwhelming. Kelly investigates two different examples of how people try to fight it's onslaught. One is the outright antagonistic approach of the Unibomber; one is the ultra-slow adoption of the Amish. Kelly argues that extreme prohibition is ineffective and even the Unibomber's supposedly off-the-grid shack was filled with items purchased from Walmart. Kelly is fascinated at the off-grid lifestyle and moderated approach towards adoption of the Amish, though he admits it's too far away from the comforts to which he is accustomed.
I agree that we live in a world of technology that we can't escape, and that existing technology will only continue to improve, whereas new and often troublesome technologies will continue to be invented. I agree that as individuals we need to first become aware of our relationship with technology, conscious to its pervasiveness, and consider nuanced approaches to how it best serves us as individuals and as a society.
There are so may good questions that this book spurs. When is a technology a basic human right (shelter, clean water, education), and when is it detrimental? Do we have a responsibility to our creations, fellow humans, or our planet? Is the constant access to social media making us at best less creative or at worst inventing new mental disorders? Are the unknown risks of a new technology like GMOs worth it if we can feed more people? What about the unknown risks of a vaccine that protects our society's weakest members? How will we know when the internet becomes sentient, or that it hasn't already? If it does, what rights will it have? I really enjoy thinking about these concepts and hope others do as well.
But let's start on what I didn't like about this book and why I'm giving it such a low star rating.
Kelly begins with the central argument that technology is inevitable. Similar inventions occurred at the same time, independently, often on opposite continents, whether ancient agriculture or, more recently, light bulbs. As each new technology appears it fuels the next logical step. Generally speaking, I agree, you can't have cars until you have the combustion engine.
However, Kelly spends a large section of the book comparing the inevitable progress of technology to biological evolution, specifically using convergent evolution as the basis for his argument. Convergent evolution suggests that instead of new mutations arising from random chance, distantly related organisms evolve similar traits to adapt to similar external pressures. Unfortunately, Kelly does not describe or define convergent evolution in those terms. Instead, he uses phrases that include, "Rather, evolution…has an inherent direction, shaped by the nature of matter and energy," and "Again and again evolution returns to a few solutions that work,"which imply that evolution is leading somewhere on purpose. Kelly's prose is full of these mystical anthropomorphic interpretations.
Not being a scientist himself, Kelly acknowledges that most scientists find the concept of "inevitable" disagreeable when applied to evolution, but then proceeds to make his own case, using a few studies and quotes from those who disagree with classical Darwinism. I'm not saying some ideas of convergent evolution aren't possible, but I find it a little backwards that Kelly uses it to prop up his own arguments that technology is also evolving convergently. Why not just just discuss technology on its own by it's own merits? Surely biology and technology each have individual concerns and constraints int he world?
In fact, Kelly proposes technology to be the 7th kingdom of organisms. It's a neat and cute idea, and useful for starting conversation, but he takes himself seriously. He concedes that it's not ideal to anthropomorphize technology, but then proceeds to do just that for the entire book (see the title again). His religious fervor at the beginning and end—at which point he discusses that technology is the next stage in evolution, and that our AI offspring are the closet we'll ever see to God—all reveal that his goal is one of mysticism and philosophy, not science.
Let me share one specific example. In the following quote, Kelly takes the kernel of a scientific idea, specifically the hypothesis of panspermia, an untestable hypothesis that suggests all life on earth did not originate on Earth, but instead that DNA was carried to Earth by way of a celestial body (ie a comet). He proceeds to dramatically embellish, anthropomorphize, phallicize in one ill-informed sentence: "Perhaps DNA was cleverly crafted by superior intelligences in white lab coats and shotgunned into the universe to naturally seed empty planets over billions of years?"
In addition, Kelly's persuasive approach is to frenetically throw facts around, leaping between subjects with impressive-sounding bits, shifting his focus and examples, both scientific and historical, to support his current point. The overwhelming repetition of disconnected facts disregards any nuance that would cast uncertainty on his points, including the concept of fitness landscapes in evolution. It's no surprise then that he coins he own term, the technium, the meaning of which bloats as every chapter progresses so that it eventually encompasses any concept of order, control, or predictability in all of space and time.
Recommended for modern ludites, those looking to limit technology in their daily lives. Skip to the Unibomber and Amish chapters!
June 2, 2025
This is one of my favorite non-fiction books that I have ever read. It doesn't hurt that it undergirds, defends and accelerates many of the perspectives I hold, but Kelly does such a good job in this book on talking about technology on so many levels. If you are a thinker who is at all related to technology (almost everyone fits that definition), this is a must read on several levels.
Some of my favorite aspects of the book are as follows.
- This book is much more intellectually rigorous than I thought it would be. Kelly gets to his definition of technology, but goes through the theories of evolution, physics and biology in order to set up his definitions and assertions. It pays off tremendously.
- Kelly does an amazing job of talking about the Unabomber and his manifesto. Rather than abjectly rejecting all of the claims, Kelly walks through the arguments and shows that while some of the arguments have merits, the end conclusion of the Unabomber was deeply flawed.
- Being such a technology leader and pioneer, it is fascinating that Kelly has spent a lot of time with the Amish. He talks about them in detail in one of the chapter and shows how their approach to tech (it's not a luddite approach!) is an interesting path forward for communities who want less tech in their lives.
- Kelly walks through the rationale of safety-ism and how it just doesn't work in competition with innovation. Very applicable for many of the conversations in tech today, especially around AI.
Some of my favorite aspects of the book are as follows.
- This book is much more intellectually rigorous than I thought it would be. Kelly gets to his definition of technology, but goes through the theories of evolution, physics and biology in order to set up his definitions and assertions. It pays off tremendously.
- Kelly does an amazing job of talking about the Unabomber and his manifesto. Rather than abjectly rejecting all of the claims, Kelly walks through the arguments and shows that while some of the arguments have merits, the end conclusion of the Unabomber was deeply flawed.
- Being such a technology leader and pioneer, it is fascinating that Kelly has spent a lot of time with the Amish. He talks about them in detail in one of the chapter and shows how their approach to tech (it's not a luddite approach!) is an interesting path forward for communities who want less tech in their lives.
- Kelly walks through the rationale of safety-ism and how it just doesn't work in competition with innovation. Very applicable for many of the conversations in tech today, especially around AI.
September 19, 2019
An quasi mystic paean to the inexorable momentum that the technological complex — which Kelly calls the technium — creates for itself. Perhaps the deepest thinker of the Silicon Valley’s organic intellectuals, Kelly is clear eyed about the trade offs that technological civilization entails even if in the end he is clearly a partisan in favor of more technology. The Unabomber was right empirically, he argues, but wrong normatively, because people in the end love their addictions and enjoy their symptoms. In the end, however, as with all addictions, the solution lives in effecting change not in the offending substance but in the addict himself.
In the end Kelly advocates an “Amish hacker” approach to technology, which amounts in essence to being both mindful, analytical and intentional about how adopting any given technology is likely to change the relationships you want to sustain. Contrary to popular belief, the Amish are not anti-technology, they are only against technologies that will disrupt their closed community.
In the end Kelly advocates an “Amish hacker” approach to technology, which amounts in essence to being both mindful, analytical and intentional about how adopting any given technology is likely to change the relationships you want to sustain. Contrary to popular belief, the Amish are not anti-technology, they are only against technologies that will disrupt their closed community.
September 2, 2022
Hard to argue with Kelly, not because his logic is unassailable as much as this reads like a "high" (air-quotes intentional) minded treatise on technology as an intentional "other."
We anthropomorphize nature and evolution all the time in popular writing and even the press. It's not surprising that Kelly does the same studying Technology (or the Technium as Kelly terms it). It's...well...it's a lot. A lot of cogitating on the history of technology. A lot of tea-leaf reading, to ascertain the tendencies and traits of a billion networked minds as a single, predictable urge to self-replication and recombination. Kelly translates that tendency, that urge, to a semi-understandable consciousness of sorts. And I'm not against it! I've read enough "consciousness is just the elephant rider, rationalizing reflexive impulses after the fact" type books (Blindsight, The Righteous Mind) to be amenable to Kelly's driving gists. It's good! There's a fair amount to chew on, especially in the last couple of chapters, and chew I will over the next few weeks. 🤔 Yeah, it's good. I'd recommend it.
We anthropomorphize nature and evolution all the time in popular writing and even the press. It's not surprising that Kelly does the same studying Technology (or the Technium as Kelly terms it). It's...well...it's a lot. A lot of cogitating on the history of technology. A lot of tea-leaf reading, to ascertain the tendencies and traits of a billion networked minds as a single, predictable urge to self-replication and recombination. Kelly translates that tendency, that urge, to a semi-understandable consciousness of sorts. And I'm not against it! I've read enough "consciousness is just the elephant rider, rationalizing reflexive impulses after the fact" type books (Blindsight, The Righteous Mind) to be amenable to Kelly's driving gists. It's good! There's a fair amount to chew on, especially in the last couple of chapters, and chew I will over the next few weeks. 🤔 Yeah, it's good. I'd recommend it.
March 12, 2025
Fascinating. Encouraging. Challenging yet appreciated, arguably necessary. Timely.
I was somewhat surprised by the theological reflections, yet also not surprised as a theological person. Curious to know what others may consider.
Well worth revisiting and recommending.
I was somewhat surprised by the theological reflections, yet also not surprised as a theological person. Curious to know what others may consider.
Well worth revisiting and recommending.
October 1, 2019
Un interesante libro sobre la tecnología y su impacto en la sociedad.
September 4, 2012
Kelly is a distinguished tech journalist (former executive editor of Wired magazine) and knows everyone who’s ever been anyone in Silicon Valley. Like all the best techies of a certain age, his roots are in hippydom, as a leading light of the Whole Earth Catalogue in the 1970s. He still sees technology in terms of its wider contribution to life.
Amish communities appear frequently in his writing as he admires their conscious, selective attitude to technology, echoing his own restrictive rules for himself (no laptop, smartphone or Twitter account).
But for all the thoughtful reservations, What Technology Wants is hugely positive. Kelly’s years of research for the book, and decades of knowledge and experience before that, are here used to brilliant effect, to construct an ambitious intellectual framework through which to view the patterns and forces that shape technological change, together with the bigger scientific picture into which, Kelly argues, technology fits.
To make his case, he goes back to biological evolution, to demonstrate, controversially, that it is going somewhere: it’s not just a directionless process, the slave to the cumulative advantages created by random variations in an unpredictable environment. No: since the Big Bang, the universe has been diversifying into smaller and more specialised units – whether atoms, molecules, organisms, social structures, or now, the structures created by technology.
It’s not the view of most evolutionists but it’s a beguiling, unifying theory that seems to answer every question. Now we can see how chemicals were created, why life evolved from the simplest structures and why human life is getting so complicated. Moore’s Law, which triumphantly describes and predicts the exponential growth in processing power, is applied to a much wider canvas.
And to give us a handle on his particular focus, Kelly has come up with a word to describe the inter-relationship of all human and animal creations: he calls it the technium (a reluctantly minted neologism, because “I dislike inventing words that no one else uses, but in this case all known alternatives fail to convey the required scope.”)
The technium isn’t just gadgets: it includes things like literature, laws, money, bird’s nests - anything that extends biological life into new dimensions and gives it power over its environment by other means.
Kelly’s point is that the diversification and specialisation we see in technology, such as how cameras have developed from one idea – to create a record what the eye can see - into multiple shapes, sizes and functions, is an exact parallel with how biological evolution creates more and more specialised varieties from a single point of origin. Indeed, he argues that technological development is just a continuation of that process.
Although it’s a broadly optimistic view, Kelly claims only that the positives slightly outweigh the negatives, both in biological and technical evolution. But with the huge numbers involved that’s all that’s needed to keep things getting better.
God doesn’t get a mention, but I was reminded of the theories of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit priest and geologist, who was quoted with approval at my Catholic school. Indeed, a quick flick through some Teilhard websites confirms my suspicion of the echoes with Kelly – the common ground being ideas of universal progress and a certain hippy sensibility. “We only have to look around us,” wrote Teilhard, “to see how complexity and
psychic temperature are still rising: and rising no longer on the scale of the individual but now on that of the planet.”
I don’t suppose Kelly would want to be lumped in with Teilhard, and for all his scientific credentials, Teilhard’s thinking was probably more informed by the writings of his spiritual masters than scientific papers. Kelly, on the other hand, bases his argument on a series of upward trending graphs and detailed accounts of what he calls technology’s unstoppable “trajectories” – things like efficiency, complexity, diversity, ubiquity, mutualism and sentience.
Everything seems to fit. But can we allow ourselves the comfort – and I think it is that – of a theory which puts humanity and all its works at the forefront of universal progress as the culmination of billions of years of physical and biological evolution?
Is this today’s equivalent of believing the earth to be at the centre of the universe? By definition, our limited perspective makes that an impossible question to answer.
Amish communities appear frequently in his writing as he admires their conscious, selective attitude to technology, echoing his own restrictive rules for himself (no laptop, smartphone or Twitter account).
But for all the thoughtful reservations, What Technology Wants is hugely positive. Kelly’s years of research for the book, and decades of knowledge and experience before that, are here used to brilliant effect, to construct an ambitious intellectual framework through which to view the patterns and forces that shape technological change, together with the bigger scientific picture into which, Kelly argues, technology fits.
To make his case, he goes back to biological evolution, to demonstrate, controversially, that it is going somewhere: it’s not just a directionless process, the slave to the cumulative advantages created by random variations in an unpredictable environment. No: since the Big Bang, the universe has been diversifying into smaller and more specialised units – whether atoms, molecules, organisms, social structures, or now, the structures created by technology.
It’s not the view of most evolutionists but it’s a beguiling, unifying theory that seems to answer every question. Now we can see how chemicals were created, why life evolved from the simplest structures and why human life is getting so complicated. Moore’s Law, which triumphantly describes and predicts the exponential growth in processing power, is applied to a much wider canvas.
And to give us a handle on his particular focus, Kelly has come up with a word to describe the inter-relationship of all human and animal creations: he calls it the technium (a reluctantly minted neologism, because “I dislike inventing words that no one else uses, but in this case all known alternatives fail to convey the required scope.”)
The technium isn’t just gadgets: it includes things like literature, laws, money, bird’s nests - anything that extends biological life into new dimensions and gives it power over its environment by other means.
Kelly’s point is that the diversification and specialisation we see in technology, such as how cameras have developed from one idea – to create a record what the eye can see - into multiple shapes, sizes and functions, is an exact parallel with how biological evolution creates more and more specialised varieties from a single point of origin. Indeed, he argues that technological development is just a continuation of that process.
Although it’s a broadly optimistic view, Kelly claims only that the positives slightly outweigh the negatives, both in biological and technical evolution. But with the huge numbers involved that’s all that’s needed to keep things getting better.
God doesn’t get a mention, but I was reminded of the theories of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit priest and geologist, who was quoted with approval at my Catholic school. Indeed, a quick flick through some Teilhard websites confirms my suspicion of the echoes with Kelly – the common ground being ideas of universal progress and a certain hippy sensibility. “We only have to look around us,” wrote Teilhard, “to see how complexity and
psychic temperature are still rising: and rising no longer on the scale of the individual but now on that of the planet.”
I don’t suppose Kelly would want to be lumped in with Teilhard, and for all his scientific credentials, Teilhard’s thinking was probably more informed by the writings of his spiritual masters than scientific papers. Kelly, on the other hand, bases his argument on a series of upward trending graphs and detailed accounts of what he calls technology’s unstoppable “trajectories” – things like efficiency, complexity, diversity, ubiquity, mutualism and sentience.
Everything seems to fit. But can we allow ourselves the comfort – and I think it is that – of a theory which puts humanity and all its works at the forefront of universal progress as the culmination of billions of years of physical and biological evolution?
Is this today’s equivalent of believing the earth to be at the centre of the universe? By definition, our limited perspective makes that an impossible question to answer.
February 5, 2019
The idea of the Technium as a whole-system of creativity with its own self-generating, inexorable evolutionary movement is a path-breaking one. The overall broad direction of the born and the made are similar: both systems move from the simple to the complex, from the general to the specific, from uniformity to diversity, from individualism to mutualism, from energy waste to efficiency, and from slow change to greater evolvability.
The 3 differences between biological and technological evolution are:
1. Vertical transmission vis-à-vis reticular spreading
2. Several small incremental steps vis-à-vis sudden leaps after periods of quiescence
3. Extinction vis-à-vis anachronistic survival
Exotropy is another powerful concept as an inversion of entropy - a rising flow of sustainable difference, and the slow accumulation of ordered information (as well as the slow ordering of accumulated information). Knowledge, including the scientific method, can be seen not just as more facts, but more and stronger connections and relationships between facts. The achievement of science is to discover new things, the evolution of science is to organize the discoveries in new ways.
The evolution of the Technium is driven toward certain recurring and inevitable forms by the Triad of human intention, structural constraints of physics and geometry, and the forces of historical contingency. It is in the first factor of free will/ choice that Technology differs from natural selection as a purely adaptive function.
The author makes a persuasive case for the overall pace of human progress, which others like Steven Pinker have also done. In addition, he challenges the anti-tech Luddites by proving that we are at a second tipping point where the Technium's ability to alter us exceeds our ability to alter the Technium. Choices without values yield little, this is true, but values without choices are equally dry.
The first law of technological expectation: The greater the promise of a new technology, the greater is its potential for harm as well. Instead of the Precautionary Principle adopted by skeptics, he proposes the Proactionary Principle (based on Max More's original suggestion).
''Technology amplifies the mind's urge towards the unity of thought, it accelerates the connections among all people, and it will populate the world with all conceivable ways of comprehending the infinite.''
The 3 differences between biological and technological evolution are:
1. Vertical transmission vis-à-vis reticular spreading
2. Several small incremental steps vis-à-vis sudden leaps after periods of quiescence
3. Extinction vis-à-vis anachronistic survival
Exotropy is another powerful concept as an inversion of entropy - a rising flow of sustainable difference, and the slow accumulation of ordered information (as well as the slow ordering of accumulated information). Knowledge, including the scientific method, can be seen not just as more facts, but more and stronger connections and relationships between facts. The achievement of science is to discover new things, the evolution of science is to organize the discoveries in new ways.
The evolution of the Technium is driven toward certain recurring and inevitable forms by the Triad of human intention, structural constraints of physics and geometry, and the forces of historical contingency. It is in the first factor of free will/ choice that Technology differs from natural selection as a purely adaptive function.
The author makes a persuasive case for the overall pace of human progress, which others like Steven Pinker have also done. In addition, he challenges the anti-tech Luddites by proving that we are at a second tipping point where the Technium's ability to alter us exceeds our ability to alter the Technium. Choices without values yield little, this is true, but values without choices are equally dry.
The first law of technological expectation: The greater the promise of a new technology, the greater is its potential for harm as well. Instead of the Precautionary Principle adopted by skeptics, he proposes the Proactionary Principle (based on Max More's original suggestion).
''Technology amplifies the mind's urge towards the unity of thought, it accelerates the connections among all people, and it will populate the world with all conceivable ways of comprehending the infinite.''
January 5, 2016
I was a bit skeptical about spending the time investment for this book when I read Wikipedia's description of Kelly, which included "born again Christian." I thought maybe he was attempting to promote ID disguised as technological evolution. It was quite the opposite. Kelly has a rare talent for seeing how things connect on the largest possible levels. It is an even greater talent to be able to convey such concepts to the reader. At this Kelly excels. There were a few chapters in the middle that felt a bit like ramblings, which included something close to preachy (technology like the rebellious teenager) and discussions of what I would call technoethics. Kelly both made his argument and debated the ethical nature of it and technology in general. Two books for the price of one.
Despite a short part in the middle that failed to keep my interest, the rest of the book was nothing short of astounding. Kelly's ability to point out comparisons between DNA, cells, molecules, etc and the different "molecules and DNA" of technology provided the reader with a new way to look at not simply the world of tech, but the world at large. This book is progressive in the extreme; and yet, at no point does it go too far. If you think you understand convergent evolution but have not yet understood what it has to do with technology, and complexity in general, Kelly will spell it out for you and help you see this old concept in a completely novel way. Kelly is at his best when he compares DNA mutations to human inventions and discusses how the role of patent lawyers in our society is indicative of universal laws. Sheer perfection.
Kelly uses the term extropy. A quick search on the web turned up this definition:
"ex·tro·py
ˈekstrəpē/
noun
the pseudoscientific principle that life will expand indefinitely and in an orderly, progressive way throughout the entire universe by the means of human intelligence and technology."
Kelly is redefining extropy and bringing it back in a big and serious way. Though some people might attempt it, it would be very difficult to dismiss Kelly's ideas as pseudoscience.
The reader needs no background in physics, biology or technology. Kelly appeals to audiences of all education levels.
Despite a short part in the middle that failed to keep my interest, the rest of the book was nothing short of astounding. Kelly's ability to point out comparisons between DNA, cells, molecules, etc and the different "molecules and DNA" of technology provided the reader with a new way to look at not simply the world of tech, but the world at large. This book is progressive in the extreme; and yet, at no point does it go too far. If you think you understand convergent evolution but have not yet understood what it has to do with technology, and complexity in general, Kelly will spell it out for you and help you see this old concept in a completely novel way. Kelly is at his best when he compares DNA mutations to human inventions and discusses how the role of patent lawyers in our society is indicative of universal laws. Sheer perfection.
Kelly uses the term extropy. A quick search on the web turned up this definition:
"ex·tro·py
ˈekstrəpē/
noun
the pseudoscientific principle that life will expand indefinitely and in an orderly, progressive way throughout the entire universe by the means of human intelligence and technology."
Kelly is redefining extropy and bringing it back in a big and serious way. Though some people might attempt it, it would be very difficult to dismiss Kelly's ideas as pseudoscience.
The reader needs no background in physics, biology or technology. Kelly appeals to audiences of all education levels.
January 29, 2011
NYTimes piece comparing cities to living organisms is a nice primer to Kelly's introduction.
I thoroughly enjoyed Kelly's unique perspective on technology as an extension of our bodies. It's not a barbeque, it's an externalization of our stomach. In this same way, humans have invented the internet as a way to externalize our brain and evolve ideas even faster than before. It's nothing new, it's a natural extension of the arc that was put in place when people first started transmitting ideas from one generation to the next through telling stories and writing them down.
In this way, Kevin Kelly humanizes technology as a natural extension of ourselves.
The chapter on an Amish community's measured analysis of new technology was fascinating and I love the tidbit that traces the reasons why the Space Shuttle solid rockets are limited a width of 4' 8.5" (that is the width of two large Roman warhorses which led to roads, which led to railroads, which determined the width of tunnels.)
There were a couple new words or phrases tucked in there as well including:
Technium - the "grand total of machines, methods, and engineering processes" which leads to a self-reinforcing system of creation.
Skeuonym - an expression left over from an older technology, no longer used. Examples include, "rewinding the tape," "dialing the phone, "filming a movie," or "cranking the engine."
Anticivilization Collapsitarian - folks like the unabomber who view technology with suspicion and fear that mass adoption is the beginning of the end.
I will read this book again.
I thoroughly enjoyed Kelly's unique perspective on technology as an extension of our bodies. It's not a barbeque, it's an externalization of our stomach. In this same way, humans have invented the internet as a way to externalize our brain and evolve ideas even faster than before. It's nothing new, it's a natural extension of the arc that was put in place when people first started transmitting ideas from one generation to the next through telling stories and writing them down.
In this way, Kevin Kelly humanizes technology as a natural extension of ourselves.
The chapter on an Amish community's measured analysis of new technology was fascinating and I love the tidbit that traces the reasons why the Space Shuttle solid rockets are limited a width of 4' 8.5" (that is the width of two large Roman warhorses which led to roads, which led to railroads, which determined the width of tunnels.)
There were a couple new words or phrases tucked in there as well including:
Technium - the "grand total of machines, methods, and engineering processes" which leads to a self-reinforcing system of creation.
Skeuonym - an expression left over from an older technology, no longer used. Examples include, "rewinding the tape," "dialing the phone, "filming a movie," or "cranking the engine."
Anticivilization Collapsitarian - folks like the unabomber who view technology with suspicion and fear that mass adoption is the beginning of the end.
I will read this book again.
October 13, 2012
Although I found a number of interesting and compelling things in this book, I can't say it was a good book overall.
Kelly looks at the inexorable march of technology and seeks patterns. He does a compelling job pointing out how the "technium" (his word for the technological sphere around us) evolves, builds, multiplies choice, and is generally a force for good. Along the way he makes excellent points about the semi-directional nature of advancement and how some technologies may be inevitable as ideas build upon each other. He also is at his most nuanced when discussing the ineffective impulse to resist or forbid technology.
However compelling or thought provoking these ideas, I couldn't help but be distracted by some pretty serious derailments. He is so earnest in his desire to connect technological advancement with biological evolution that he ends up writing half of an amateur evolution text (you'd be better of with any of Dawkins' tomes for the topic). He also can't resist repeated anecdotes about the Amish.
Combine these distractions with his love of repeating himself and including pointless, long lists (when he writes "board games", he then rattles off at least 12 board game names), and I was left feeling a bit exhausted and abused. Inexplicably, at one point, he also argues (poorly) that quantum uncertainty creates free will in some meaningful, human-scale way. And then, in the last pages of the final chapter, he makes a puzzling left turn to invoke God.
This book, stripped down to its virtuous arguments, could have been much, much shorter (and better as a result).
Kelly looks at the inexorable march of technology and seeks patterns. He does a compelling job pointing out how the "technium" (his word for the technological sphere around us) evolves, builds, multiplies choice, and is generally a force for good. Along the way he makes excellent points about the semi-directional nature of advancement and how some technologies may be inevitable as ideas build upon each other. He also is at his most nuanced when discussing the ineffective impulse to resist or forbid technology.
However compelling or thought provoking these ideas, I couldn't help but be distracted by some pretty serious derailments. He is so earnest in his desire to connect technological advancement with biological evolution that he ends up writing half of an amateur evolution text (you'd be better of with any of Dawkins' tomes for the topic). He also can't resist repeated anecdotes about the Amish.
Combine these distractions with his love of repeating himself and including pointless, long lists (when he writes "board games", he then rattles off at least 12 board game names), and I was left feeling a bit exhausted and abused. Inexplicably, at one point, he also argues (poorly) that quantum uncertainty creates free will in some meaningful, human-scale way. And then, in the last pages of the final chapter, he makes a puzzling left turn to invoke God.
This book, stripped down to its virtuous arguments, could have been much, much shorter (and better as a result).
May 13, 2015
Pretty awful. Full of faulty logic, Strawmen, overgeneralizations, and rhetorical questions that just make you want to scream "No, not always!" I liked the chapter on the Amish, that was full of interesting details about that subculture. The chapter on the Unibomber was just plan creepy - despite the author including disclaimer after disclaimer about how he didn't condone anything - it pushed past sympathetic and into paean. He mentions several video games I've enjoyed, specifically Halo, in ways which are simply untrue - basically the equivalent of calling The Godfather a comedic gem. This makes it clear that not only did he never bother spending any significant time playing them, but he never bothered to fact check his references with pretty much any gamer who has.
But what does technology want? The concept of The Technium is one I wanted to like...but couldn't get past how baseless it is. It's the biggest false analogy in the book (and there isn't exactly a dearth of candidates). Similarly, the conclusion "technology wants to become useless, it wants to become art" might have even been interesting, had it been argued with any competence. But rational thinking took a left turn somewhere before this one was finished. I'd wager if Kelly hadn't founded Wired, no editor in their right mind would have let half the nonsense in here pass unchallenged.
Also, the narration on the audiobook was abysmal. Strange cadences, inflections on unimportant parts of sentences, a tone which was consistently grating. I wouldn't have imagined the reading itself could have such an impact on the enjoyment of nonfiction content...I stand corrected.
But what does technology want? The concept of The Technium is one I wanted to like...but couldn't get past how baseless it is. It's the biggest false analogy in the book (and there isn't exactly a dearth of candidates). Similarly, the conclusion "technology wants to become useless, it wants to become art" might have even been interesting, had it been argued with any competence. But rational thinking took a left turn somewhere before this one was finished. I'd wager if Kelly hadn't founded Wired, no editor in their right mind would have let half the nonsense in here pass unchallenged.
Also, the narration on the audiobook was abysmal. Strange cadences, inflections on unimportant parts of sentences, a tone which was consistently grating. I wouldn't have imagined the reading itself could have such an impact on the enjoyment of nonfiction content...I stand corrected.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 353 reviews