BARELY four years after the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, the Victorian novelist Samuel Butler was calling for a theory of evolution for machines. Since then, a few hardy souls have attempted to oblige him, but none has quite hit the mark. Their reasoning, very much à la Darwin, is that any given technology has many designers with different ideas – which produces many variations. Of these variations, some are selected for their superior performance and pass on their small differences to future designs. The steady accumulation of such differences gives rise to novel technologies and the result is evolution.
This sounds plausible, and it works for already existing technologies – certainly the helicopter and the cellphone progress by variation and selection of better designs. But it doesn’t explain the origin of radically novel technologies, the equivalent of novel species in biology. The jet engine, for example, does not arise from the steady accumulation of changes in the piston engine, nor does the computer emerge from accumulated changes in electromechanical calculators. Darwin’s mechanism does not apply to technology.
So what would a theory of evolution for technology look like? Do technologies descend by some unambiguous process from the collective of earlier technologies? In my new book, The Nature of Technology, I argue that they do. But to see how, we need to tailor our thinking directly to technology, not borrow from biology.
New Scientist (Thanks Eliza)
Only if evolution means that we get to live less long with time .. and that there is a loss of quality .. as tht is what is really going on in technology quite a lot … they dont last … nor are the new things always an improvement .. some seem to focus even more on looks than on good inside … so that sounds as if they go backwards … it could have been evolution, but then evolution as it should have been (is not the case in our living world .. it only seems to adapt .. but does it really do that from intelligence … or insight .. or forward thinking .. No, ofcourse not .. It’s just running around in circles .. that’s life .. and technology probably as well, asit is attached to human brain … nice spin off huh .. you get then … very predictable ….
I didn’t know that some artists as far back as the Victorian times were aware the possible evolution of machines. Samuel Butler must have been a genius!
“Exponential growth” is the key word here. Most people tend to think about the evolution of technology as a linear change. Ray Kurzweil share his vision about the subject in this video on TED:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzweil_on_how_technology_will_transform_us.html
I think our time is up, the world as we know it come closer and closer to become the Prehistoric Age of Machines. But we will be finally become Gods. We will be seen as the Creator of a new intelligent from! I hope machines won’t find out what Zeus did to his father….
Exponential growth – or Michio Kaku’s theory that time has branched off and someone from another timeline has infiltrated our time vibe. Maybe they left behind a pile of instruction manuals? Maybe they whisper in our ears from underneath their invisibility cloaks..?
no JayKay, no manual, no time travel, no invisibility. only that damn exponential speed machines evolve…
On the other hand if you were just a simulation in a computer program, will you be aware of it? Like the characters you can play in World of Warcraft. The obey some rules too, they stick to the ground like there is gravity, they can’t go through objects the programmers designed to be solid, they can interact each other, but they don’t really “exist”, just like the whole WOW is just a bunch of pixels on your screen.
Don’t think about Windows, Linux, PC-s and Macs and plugged in Neos like in the Matrix. Think a bigger hardware and software: matter (energy) of the whole universe and DNA. Big Bang – start of the simulation. Will you be aware of your programmer and hardware maker?
I’m just a spec in the dirty accelerating accumulating snowball of this mad thing I perceive as my life.
I don’t know. maybe we are. But life is beautiful ‘ey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9-RSyuw_9E&feature=related
start from 3:27
What we still don\’t know. with Martin Rees.
All life on Earth can be traced back to one original primordial cell, thus we have only the one tree of life. On the other hand technical inovation may (and frequently does) have many diverse and unrelated origins, so not so much a tree as a forest. It may be possible, therefore, to observe the principles of Darwinian evolution within jndividual trees of the technological forest but not in the forest as a whole.
Is the evolution of our technology not therefore traceable to that one original primordial cell also? That cell developed to develop the technology.
And Zsolt, life is beautiful/ugly methinks.
Watched the clip, ta. I’ll have a look at some of the other vids too. What will we do with what we are about to learn, eh? What will that knowledge do to us..? If we know, if we have too many choices to make, it must surely be the end of a natural evolution? Could we ever predict the right decisions to take as to how to evolve? I hope we never have the knowledge. I prefer the way things work now. But what do I know?
I have to go to beddie now. Doing a ten mile charity walk for Unicef tomorrow night, so have to save a wee bitta energy. Thank you for the chat. Have enjoyed expanding my brain for the past couple of days on this site.
wow this is a good one, could do with more room, firstly evolution and the original species i have always wondered and have trued to find the answer to the origin of life for earth but have failed to find one everything after the point of life beginning i get but its original source where did life come from , i believe it was bacterial mushrooms that where at the beginning but where did they come from for instance if a sterile environment could be made for an experiment with all elements etc in it and put it through all natural processes it would never become life and to say it comes from another planet also is daft because it would have to have been a planet similar to ours with all the same questions , anyone know the answer ? , but then there is existence and all the facts which (more)
(continued) prove that although physics is our existence its cannot really exist as it is impossible to accept the facts it the hardest part but its only perception it is a fact that existence cannot have an outer barrier nor is it possible for us not to have an out side barrier and it is a fact that a place could not exist for existence to begin to exist in etc. but obviously we do exist !! we are real, but as information existing in no place at all combined together as a whole every part connected to the other , live for the experience as that’s all there is, no i am not religious at all religion is a from of control invented before the gun ! ,but we have lots of guns now so whats the point of religion . And now to more to technology and the evolution of it yes i believe it (more)
(continued)evokes in are brains our thoughts just as life would because we are living beings thinking of it so its always from biology as a designer/inventor i do a lot of world first designs but with out previous designs i would never have been on that path of that design , the nature of information technology is to evolve existing designs but as a species a believe we are at a cross roads we have become good at technology but we are destroying ourselves with it either we change and continue to progress or we destroy ourselves as in a mad max situation probably appealing to some until they are being hunted as a food source as it will be every man for themselves and very little food no farms shops etc, and its the so called leaders of our countries to thank for it talk about stupid !! bye
Interesting idea that “technology” evolves… my (basic) understanding of evolution is of arbitrary, inheritable adjustments to an organism’s “blueprint”, and natural selection gradually eradicates the less successful blueprints leaving the more successful designs to flourish and populate the next generation of organisms.
In technology, much of the “evolutionary” development is done intentionally, with a target in sight. We want faster, smaller, more efficient microchips, so we research which materials have the properties we want, and what manufacturing techniques can be used (or developed) to give us our end result.
Technology seems to lean towards “intelligent design”… is there an intelligent design/evolution middle ground?
Could technology be intelligently/intentionally evolved?
hmmmmm – well dawkins is usually right isn’t he?
Reading the article of the professor, i think he misses the larger picture, stuck with fragmental changes, drive his argument on very narrow road. His examples are weak:
The jet engine in not evolved from the piston engine, and computers did not come from accumulated changes in electromechanical calculators therefore “Darwin’s mechanism does not apply to technology”.
What?!? Darwin’s understanding of evolution is 150 years old! We know more about evolutionary patterns since 1860.
The unexpected changes (random mutation in biology, human genius in technology) are totally absent in his explanation. After this I’m not interested his book…
JayKay: I hope you slept well and had the necessary strength for the Unicef walk.
Pete: We could understand you better, if you would use some punctuation in your comment.
Tash: As far as I know, _Darwin_ was a hardcore old style scientist. He observed, observed, observed and observed life a lot. And made a lot of notes. Mostly he just wrote down what he saw and did not stated too much. But the few thing he humbly said, changed the view of world about life.
But the theory of his understanding changed a lot in the past 150 years though.
Hmm, no human moderator. The machines already took over Derren Browns blog!
Resistance is futile…
I’m off to London Bridge in ten mins to meet the others for teh Unicef walk. Will enjoy the windy evening with fun people and hopefully earn some dosh for charity. Ta Zsolt. Enjoy the rest of the evening’s blog.
haha sorry Zsolt, Phillis was moderating at that point and didn’t notice!
I’ve amended it for you
Thanks, for sorting it out and also for leave the joke in! It come out funny isn’t it?
Good blog, there are some interesting topics and debates here too!
Greetings to Phillis too!
Take care,
zsolt