Richard Ogle's "Smart World" and Brian Arthur's "The Nature of Technology" make for an interesting pair of complementary reads. Arthur's book is more straightforward and focused - an attempt to create a basic theory of the nature of technology. Ogle's ambitions are higher but not achieved - trying to synthesize network theory, complexity theory, behavioral economics and other disciplines into an overall theory of creativity. Although I think Ogle reaches too broadly and ultimately fails, an essential component of his thesis is correct. He sees a "smart world" in the sense that we have placed so much technology into the world that the physical world around us is "smart" and thus enables space and thought to merge ("idea spaces" he calls the product). This means that when these idea spaces intersect, they are more "full" and thus the likelihood of a great creative breakthrough emerging is that much higher. What's the connection to Arthur? Arthur's view of technology is that it is combinatorial - each technology sits on the shoulders of previous ones. Thus our technologies consist of a host of sub-technologies, which in turn consist of more sub-technologies. The combinatorial, recursive and complex nature of current technologies yields not merely a systems-oriented approach to technology but almost a biological one. Ogle looks at incredibly creative people, such as the painters Turner and Picasso, architect Frank Gehry and others and sees their genius in being able to smash together different idea spaces. Ditto Arthur "What is common to originators is not genius or special powers. Rather, it is the possession of a very large quiver of functionalities and principles". Ogle does not attempt a theory of technology per se, rather, he attempts one of creativity. In focusing more narrowly on technology, Arthur is more successful. He also gets to the heart of human concern about technology: "Since for all of human existence we have been at home in nature - we trust nature, not technology. And yet we look to technology to take care of our future - we hope in technology. Technology is the (human) programming of nature, the orchestration and use of nature's phenomena. So, in its deepest sense it is profoundly natural. But it does not feel natural. If we merely used nature's phenomena in raw form, to power water wheels or propel sailing ships, we would feel more at home with technology. But now, with the coming of genetic engineering, machine intelligence, climate engineering, we are beginning to use technology to intervene directly within nature. To our primate species, at home in a habitat of trees and grasses and other animals, this feels profoundly unnatural. This disturbs our deep trust. So we turn to tradition, environmentalism, family values, fundamentalism. Behind those reactions, justified or not, lie fears. We fear that technology separates us from nature, destroys nature, destroys our nature. We fear this phenomenon of technology that is not in our control. We fear we are unleashing some thing of disembodied action somehow taking on a life of its own and coming to control us. WE fear technology as a living thing that will bring us death."
Bingo. We are comfortable with "nature", which brings us earthquakes, tsunamis, mass extinctions and epidemics, but we are not comfortable with the technologies of water control, seismic engineering and vaccinations? We are comfortable with people surviving as they did in the Stone Age - eking out a living on (barely) subsistence farming, but we fear GMOs that would increase crop yields and feed the planet? Sad sad sad.
