Technology becomes a living organism.

Reprinted and added from the commentary in Humanity has only a short time left - U Theory, Ryo Nakadoi (7) / NISHIO Hirokazu’s “How Engineers Learn” | Cybozu Style

I think I was just using catchy words when I introduced “Technology and Innovation” as a book that claims that “technology will become biology.
- [In Brian Arthur’s book “Technology and innovation” (original title: “The Nature of Technology: What It Is and It Evolves”) and in Kevin Kelly. What Technology Wants”), who considers the development of technology by analogy with the evolution of living organisms.
- The original title is deliberately introduced for the purpose of using the personification “Technology is something you Want”.
Kevin Kelly stated that there are three forces at work in the evolution of life: structural inevitability, historical contingency, and functional adaptability, and three forces at work in the evolution of technology: structural inevitability, historical contingency, and intentional openness. In other words, they are three forces at work. In other words, the two share a common structure, only one of the three forces is different. Openness” here is the property of being able to combine. In answer to the original question What Technology Wants, organisms wanted to survive by adapting to their environment, and technology wanted to survive by combining with other things to become products.
- Regarding the openness of technology, for example, something like USB (Universal Serial Bus) can occur, making it easier for components to connect to each other.Interconnectivity
In the case of living organisms, existing genes are mutated and combined to create individuals, which are then tested by “natural selection” to see if they can adapt to their environment, and the individuals that pass the test create the next individuals, thus creating a cycle of improvement.
Similarly, in the case of technology, existing technical knowledge is mutated, combinations are created, the combinations are tested to see if they are “useful,” and new combinations are created based on those that pass the test, thus creating a cycle of improvement.
Kevin Kelly believed that this test is done by the collective free will of society, while Brian Arthur believed that it is done by commercial availability. This commercial test by the market is characterized by the following characteristics: it is advantageous to improve components that are already widely used, and it is advantageous to make components that can be combined in a variety of ways (openness). Brian Arthur’s argument is that this is the process by which technology develops, whereby components that can be combined in a variety of ways are created and improved.
And as the number of such components increases, the number of possible combination patterns increases. The area outside the search area increases, because the human search ability does not change much, even though the search area increases. Those who search according to an existing, widely known framework end up crowded into a narrow area. When you remove that framework, you open up a wide Blue Ocean where there is no competition. This is where “an unexpected combination of products is unexpectedly well received when launched in the marketplace.Existing frameworkUnexpected success

🪴 Quartz 4.0

Technology becomes a living organism.

Graph View

Backlinks