The Inevitability of Technology

About three months ago, I finished reading KK's "What Technology Wants." The book presents many intriguing viewpoints. Today, I have some time, and I want to organize a few thoughts.

Biological Evolution

It is generally accepted that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct, and biological evolution is the result of natural selection. Genetic material undergoes random mutations, and individuals that cannot adapt to their environment cannot pass on their inherited chromosomes to their offspring. In other words, biological evolution is dominated by both randomness and natural selection.

However, KK argues that the process of biological evolution is not primarily driven by randomness and natural selection, but is simultaneously influenced by necessity, chance, and adaptability. Necessity, chance, and adaptability manifest in biological evolution as structure, history, and function, respectively.

While chance and adaptability are widely accepted and included in our high school biology textbooks, necessity is often denied by mainstream biological views. KK believes that the engine of evolution is "non-historical," creating change independently of history. Replaying this part yields the same story. This aspect of evolution drives the emergence of necessity. For example, defensive stingers have evolved in at least 12 species: spiders, stingrays, nettles, centipedes, stonefish, bees, sea anemones, male platypuses, jellyfish, scorpions, shelled mollusks, and snakes. The recurrence of this shared structure is not due to a common evolutionary history but rather a common origin of life; its formation is not derived from external environments but from the internal dynamics of self-organizing complexes.

Another example is that six independent dinosaur lineages evolved along the same morphological path. Over time, these six dinosaurs exhibited the same (inevitable) morphological trends, such as the reduction of side toes—the elongated part of the claw bone—and the shortening of "fingers." We can refer to this pattern as a partial "dinosaur commonality." Because these features are repeated across the six lineages, their structural prototypes are not merely randomly generated.

Yet another example includes tetrapods (four-legged), serpentine forms, eyeballs (spherical cameras), coiled intestines, egg sacs, flapping wings, recurring limbs, trees, dust mites, and fingers. They are universal rather than specific forms. The randomness of life determines their details, while the necessity of life outlines the macro blueprints, depicting many prototypes. Biologist Brian Goodwin argues, "All major morphological features of organisms—hearts, brains, intestines, limbs, eyes, leaves, flowers, roots, trunks, branches, and here only the obvious features—are the result of morphological laws arising naturally."

Using necessity to explain the eye is more rational than evolutionary theory. Looking at billions of years of history, it seems that evolution wants to create certain structures; life wants to produce eyeballs because it keeps repeating this invention. There exists a tendency within the seemingly chaotic whirlpool of evolution to rediscover the same forms, consistently achieving the same results. It is as if life is adhering to a rule. It "needs" to materialize a certain pattern. Even the real world seems to lean in that direction.

Many signs indicate that the region of the universe where humans reside is suitable for the formation of life. Our planet is at just the right distance from the sun—close enough to be warmed, yet far enough to avoid being scorched. Earth has a large neighbor—the moon—that helps slow down Earth's rotation, extending the length of a day and stabilizing it over the long term. Earth shares the sun with Jupiter, which acts as a magnet to capture comets. Ice blocks captured by comets may still be the origin of Earth's oceans. Earth's magnetic core generates a protective shield against cosmic rays. Its gravitational pull is just right to retain water and oxygen. It has a thin crust that allows for plate tectonics to occur. These variable factors seem to converge in this habitable zone that is neither too small nor too large. Recent studies suggest that the Milky Way also has a habitable zone. If planets are too close to the center of the Milky Way, they will suffer continuous lethal cosmic ray attacks; if too far, when stellar dust condenses into planetary material, there will be a lack of heavy elements necessary for life formation. Our solar system is just in the middle of this habitable zone. Continuing to list these factors may soon inevitably encompass every aspect of life on Earth. Everything is perfect! Some false "job postings" have secretly been rigged, suitable only for the person already predetermined; the advantages we just listed will soon resemble such false postings.
Some of these habitable factors may prove to be mere coincidences, but their quantity and deeply rooted nature—according to Paul Davies—indicate that "natural laws are manipulated in favor of the formation of life." According to this view, "crystals precipitate from saturated solutions, and life emerges from primordial soup in the same reliable way, ultimately predetermined by interatomic forces." Early pioneers of biogenesis, such as Cyril Ponnamperuma, believed that "the inherent properties of atoms and molecules seem to guide synthetic reactions" toward the direction of nurturing life. The theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman believes that his comprehensive simulations of the environment before the emergence of life show that once conditions are right, the formation of life is inevitable. He states that our existence today belongs to a situation where "we are not accidental but destined." In 1971, mathematician Manfred Eigen wrote, "If life evolution is based on derivable physical laws, it should be regarded as an inevitable process."

Christian de Duve, who won the Nobel Prize for his research in biochemistry, holds an even more radical view. He believes that life is something the universe must accomplish. In his book "Vital Dust," he writes, "Life is the product of a predetermined force. Under these dominant conditions, life is destined to appear. Whenever and wherever the same conditions exist, it will appear in similar forms... The emergence of life and consciousness is not the result of an aberrant event but a natural manifestation of matter, pre-encoded in the structure of the universe."

In summary, the necessity of life does not merely state that life is bound to appear, but also includes what form it will take, in what manner, and in what sequence it will appear.

If life is bound to appear, why not fish? If fish are inevitable, why not thought? If thought is also inevitable, why not the internet?

The Process of Technological Development

"What Technology Wants" expresses a similar viewpoint to "Technology and Civilization": nearly half of all human technological inventions are useless, with this ratio approaching 50% (though it may be slightly lower; I believe internet products are largely similar), but it does not exceed 50%.

In the book, KK creates a new term called "technium." The technium includes not only some concrete technologies (such as cars, radar, and computers) but also culture, laws, social institutions, and all intelligent creations. In short, the technium is everything that emerges from human consciousness.

KK believes that technology is an extension of life, and humans exist between technology and life, merely as a midpoint rather than an endpoint. The driving force of technological development is similar to that of biological evolution, consisting of structure (necessity), history (randomness), and consciousness (openness). Unlike natural selection, the adaptability of the technium is determined by human consciousness.

The process of technological development, like life, also follows certain rules. These rules are not influenced by historical actions; that is, if you were to dismantle existing technology and redevelop it, what should appear will still appear, and what should be invented will still be invented, reflecting a certain inevitability.

• In the processes of multiple different civilizations' origins, the same tools have been independently invented. For example, in some primitive tribes in Africa and Southeast Asia, identical bow and arrow technologies and archery techniques emerged without any cultural exchange. Archaeobiological evidence shows that agriculture was independently invented six times across different continents.
• In isolated continents, inventions always appear in a certain order: after the invention of flint, the control of fire follows, then stone knives and stone ball weapons. Next come ochre pigments, burial of corpses, fishing tools, lightweight projectile tools, drilling holes in stone, sewing, and statue carving. This sequence is quite uniform. Knife points always emerge after the use of fire, burial of corpses always follows knife points, and archery techniques always precede bonding techniques. Many sequences are "natural" processes. Clearly, one must master knife-edge technology before making an axe. Weaving always follows sewing because any type of fabric requires thread. However, many other sequences lack simple causal logic. Why do rock paintings always appear before sewing technology? There is currently no accepted reason, even though every civilization has followed this pattern. There is no reason why metal products must necessarily arise after pottery, yet this is always the case.

The emergence of the technium predates people's awareness of its existence; chimpanzees use branches to help them better catch ants, while the term technology appeared long after chimpanzees learned to use branches. Now that technology has developed to its current state, I believe we can increasingly see the inevitability of technology.

If a home has electricity, it is almost certain that someone will think about how to use electricity for lighting. Once industrial processes reach a certain level, with a certain reserve of knowledge in aerodynamics, the invention of the airplane is almost certain. A recent example is that once the computing power of small computers reaches a certain level and battery technology develops to a certain extent, the emergence of HoloLens is almost certain.

Any technology will only emerge when conditions are ripe, and once conditions are ripe, it will definitely appear.

Even if the Wright brothers had not invented the airplane, others would have certainly done so. In fact, both the French and Americans independently invented the airplane. And everyone knows that Edison invented the light bulb; in fact, before Edison, the same incandescent bulb using the same glowing principle had already been "re-invented" at least 23 times by different people. These 23 bulbs used different filament shapes, wire materials, etc., but the basic principle was the same.

In 2009, the world commemorated the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, recognizing the impact of his theory on human science and culture. The commemorative celebration overlooked Alfred Russel Wallace, who established the same theory of evolution almost simultaneously—150 years ago. Strangely, both Wallace and Darwin developed the theory of natural selection after reading Thomas Malthus's work on population growth. After Wallace's similar discovery was published, Darwin was encouraged to publish his findings. If Darwin had died during his famous voyage (a fate not uncommon in that era) or had succumbed to illness during his studies in London, we would be commemorating Wallace's birth, and he would become the sole genius behind this theory. Wallace was a naturalist living in Southeast Asia, also suffering from various ailments. In fact, while reading Malthus's work, he was afflicted by a jungle fever that weakened the body. Even if the impoverished Wallace were completely overwhelmed by this Indonesian disease and Darwin passed away, according to the notes of other naturalists, it is clear that others would still arrive at the theory that natural selection leads to evolution, even if they never read Malthus's work. Some believe that Malthus himself was close to generating this idea. These individuals would not articulate this theory in the same way, would not present the same arguments, and would not cite the same evidence, but nonetheless, today we would commemorate the 150th anniversary of the birth of natural evolution theory.
In reality, it is highly likely that every new thing has many "parents." The first observation of sunspots was not made by two people but by four independent observers, including Galileo, all in 1611. We know that there were six different inventors of the thermometer, and three for the subcutaneous injection needle. Four scientists independently discovered the efficacy of vaccination before Edward Jenner. Adrenaline was "first" isolated four times. The telegraph was repeatedly invented by Joseph Henry, Samuel Morse, William Cooke, Charles Wheatstone, and Karl Steinheil. Louis Daguerre is known as the inventor of photography, but there were three others—Nicephore Niepce, Hercules Florence, and William Henry Fox Talbot—who also researched the same technology. The invention of logarithms is typically credited to two mathematicians—John Napier and Henry Briggs—but in fact, a third mathematician, Joost Burgi, invented logarithms three years before them. In both England and America, several inventors simultaneously created typewriters. Two scientists predicted the existence of the eighth planet, Neptune, in 1846. Looking at three chemical examples, the liquefaction of oxygen, the electrolysis of aluminum, and the stereochemistry of carbon were all discovered by multiple people, with each of these discoveries occurring within about a month of each other.

Genius is not necessary; the development of technology does not rely on genius, and technological development is even independent of humanity. Even if today's intelligent beings are not humans, technology will still develop along the same trajectory.

Similarly, we can understand that technology cannot achieve leapfrog development. Clearly, we will not see Tesla until battery technology matures. However, KK believes that even if we want to colonize Mars, we cannot directly use the latest and most advanced technology to start from scratch.

I think we should try, but it will end in failure. If we want to civilize Mars, bulldozers will play a significant role, just as low-level functions govern our brains, the industrialization process governs the technium, even though it is superficially coated with the bright colors of information technology. The demassification of high technology is sometimes just an illusion. Although the technium indeed accomplishes more work with less material, information technology is not a virtual source of water. Matter remains important. As the technium advances, information and matter merge, just as information and order are embedded in the atoms of DNA molecules. Advanced technology is a seamless fusion of bits and atoms. It injects intelligence into industry rather than eliminating industry and leaving only information.
Technology, like an organic organism, requires continuous development to reach a specific stage. Various inventions follow this unified development order that exists across all civilizations and societies, independent of human talent. We cannot achieve the desired leap in development. However, when the supporting technological network for an invention is ready, it will rapidly emerge, immediately appearing before everyone. The human innovation process evolves into specific forms controlled by the laws of physics and chemistry in various ways, and these sequences are determined by the laws of complexity. We call this the rules of technology.

Because the inevitability of technology is so easy to articulate compared to life, I want to elaborate a bit more on the randomness of technology (history).

There is a very classic example, though somewhat ridiculous, but fundamentally true: the width of the ordinary freight cart in Rome matched that of Roman Empire chariots, making it easier to follow the ruts made by the chariots on the roads. The chariot's size was no less than the width of two large war horses, which converts to 4 feet 8.5 inches in imperial units. The roads traversing the vast Roman Empire were all built to this specific width. When the Roman legions marched into Britain, they constructed imperial roads that were 4 feet 8.5 inches wide. When the British began building tramways, they adopted the same width to accommodate the same four-wheeled carts. And when they started building railways for horse-drawn carriages, the width of the tracks naturally remained 4 feet 8.5 inches. Labor immigrants from the British Isles used the same tools and molds when building the first railway in America. Now, as we develop the American space shuttle, its components come from all over the country and are finally assembled in Florida. Because the two large solid-fuel rocket engines at the launch end are transported by rail from Utah, this line must pass through a tunnel that is slightly wider than standard tracks, and the diameter of the rocket body cannot exceed 4 feet 8.5 inches too much. To summarize humorously: "Thus, an important design parameter of the world's most advanced transportation system was determined 2000 years ago by the width of two horses' behinds."

The inevitability of technology is not "fatalism." Mobile communication devices will certainly appear, but an iPhone 5 with a white body is not guaranteed. Cars will certainly appear, but a sleek Ferrari body is not guaranteed. To be precise, due to the inventor's personality, the materials at hand, cultural or social backgrounds, financial support, and luck, the variations in these manifestations can be quite large. The light produced by a tungsten filament installed in an elliptical vacuum bulb does not possess inevitability, but the incandescent light bulb is an inevitable thing.

The general concept of the incandescent light bulb can be abstracted from all specific details, which can vary—such as voltage, tungsten filament strength, and bulb type—but the result remains the same: the light brought by electricity. This general concept is similar to the typical forms of biology, while the specific material forms of the concept resemble species. Typical forms are determined by the developmental trajectories of technological elements, while species are incidental.

Constraints of Physics and Chemistry

Due to my poor understanding of the sciences, I have dived headfirst into the IT industry since college. Here, I will quote directly.

Plants and animals exhibit a dazzling diversity of body shapes. Insects can be tiny, like lice, or large, like horned beetles the size of shoes; redwoods can reach 100 meters, while small alpine plants can fit in a tube; the massive blue whale is like a ship at sea, while a small chameleon is only 1 inch long. However, the size of each species is not arbitrary; they conform to certain size ratios. Surprisingly, the size ratios of plants and animals are constants determined by the physical laws of water. The strength of cell walls is determined by the surface tension of water, which in turn determines that the density of any possible form of body corresponds to a maximum length. These physical laws operate not only on Earth but throughout the universe, so we can expect that any water-based organism, regardless of when it evolves or where its evolutionary endpoint lies, will tend toward this universally applicable size ratio (adjusted for local gravity).
The metabolism of life is similarly constrained. Small animals have short lifespans and die early, while large animals live longer. The speed of an animal's life—how quickly cells burn energy, the speed of muscle contractions, gestation periods, and maturation periods—clearly correlates with life cycles and body size. Metabolic rates and heart rates are proportional to the weight of the animal. These constants arise from the fundamental laws of physics and geometry, as well as the natural advantages of minimizing surface areas (such as lung surfaces, cell surfaces, and the volume of bodily fluids). Compared to elephants, mice have faster heartbeats and lung rates, yet both have the same number of heartbeats and breaths over their lifetimes. It seems that God has allotted mammals 1.5 billion heartbeats and told them to use them as they wish. The small mouse races ahead, living a fast-forward version of the elephant's life.
In biology, the most typical example of a constant metabolic rate is found in mammals, but researchers have recently discovered that similar laws apply to all plants and bacteria, and even various ecosystems. Sparse cold-water algal communities can be viewed as slow-motion versions of warm-blooded animals. The energy contained in each kilogram of matter in plants or ecosystems (or energy density) is comparable to the energy required for metabolism. Many life parameters—such as the time required for animal incubation, the speed of forest formation, and the rate of DNA mutation—seem to conform to universal metabolic scaling laws. "We find that despite the incredible diversity of life—from tomato plants to amoebas to salmon—many of these (metabolic) rates and times are strikingly similar when size and temperature are taken into account," said researchers James Gillooly and Geoffrey West, who discovered this law. They believe that "metabolic rate is a fundamental biological rate," a "cosmic clock" that governs the speed of all forms of life movement. For any organism, this clock is inescapable.
There are also some physical constants that are universal in the biological world. Almost all types of organisms exhibit bilateral symmetry (the left and right sides are mirror images of each other). This basic symmetry seems to confer multi-layered adaptive advantages, including superior movement balance, foresighted redundancy (everything has at least two!), and efficient gene code simplification (only needing to copy one side of the code). Other geometric structures simply apply basic physical principles effectively, such as tubular structures that deliver nutrients to plants and animals (the intestines are such a structure). Some recurring constructs, like the branching of trees and corals or the spiral arrangement of petals, are based on mathematical principles of growth. Their recurrence is because mathematics is eternal. All life on Earth is based on proteins, and the way proteins fold and unfold within cells determines the characteristics and behaviors of that organism. Biochemists Michael Denton and Craig Marshall argue, "Recent advances in the field of protein chemistry suggest that at least one class of biological structures—namely, basic protein folding—is determined by similar physical laws that govern the formation of crystals and atoms. These laws give each organism a unified ideal structure beneath its appearance." As the fundamental molecules that trigger the diversity of life, proteins are ultimately constrained by a limited set of reproducible laws.

We often speculate about what aliens might look like, but in reality, chemistry is chemistry and does not change anywhere in the universe. Carbon is at the core of life due to its high chemical reactivity and its many "hooks" for connecting with other elements. It has a very harmonious relationship with oxygen. Carbon easily oxidizes to become fuel for animals and is also easily deoxygenated (reduced in oxygen) by plant chlorophyll. Naturally, it becomes the backbone of long chains made up of vastly different macromolecules. Silicon, the isotopic sister of carbon, is the most likely candidate for creating non-carbon-based life forms. Silicon's combinations with other elements are also diverse, and it is more abundant on Earth than carbon. When science fiction writers imagine other life forms, they often base them on silicon. However, in reality, silicon has several significant drawbacks. It cannot form chain-like structures with complex bonds, limiting the size of its derivatives. Silicon-silicon bonds are unstable in water. When silicon "inhales" oxygen, it "exhales" mineral-like precipitates, unlike the gaseous carbon dioxide. This makes it difficult to disperse. Silicon-based life might exhale hard grains of sand. Essentially, silicon creates dry life. Without a liquid medium, it is hard to imagine how complex molecules could be transported for interaction. Perhaps silicon-based life exists in scorching worlds where silicates can dissolve. It is also possible that the medium is extremely cold liquid nitrogen. However, unlike ice that floats on unfrozen liquids and separates from them, frozen nitrogen sinks, causing the entire ocean to freeze. These concerns are not hypothetical but are based on experiments to create alternatives to carbon-based life. There is reason to believe that extraterrestrial life is also carbon-based and uses DNA for heredity, so to study aliens, we can study ourselves.

Exotropy

It may sound like I am describing supernatural forces, akin to pantheistic deities spread throughout the universe. However, my description is almost the opposite. This force, like gravity, is embedded in the structure of matter and energy. It follows physical laws and obeys the highest natural law—entropy. This force, waiting to erupt, is first driven by entropy, shaping various technologies through self-organization processes, gradually propelling the lifeless Earth into the world of life, birthing thought from life, and creating the products of thought. It is a force observable at the intersection of information, matter, and energy, capable of recurring and measurable, although it has only recently begun to be studied.

So what is all this about? Why does life evolve in such a way, and why does technology develop in such a manner? KK believes it is all due to the law of exotropy.

In classical thermodynamic texts, the world is unidirectional; all matter inevitably moves toward homogenization in the "atomic" traversals, exchanges, and entanglements, heading toward "heat death." This is the power of "entropy."

"Entropy" describes the degree of "disorder" in a system, while the force that resists this state of "disorder" is called exotropy. This law has been in effect since the Big Bang.

If we look at the speed at which energy flows through a unit of matter, the universe is the smallest, galaxies are slightly larger than the universe, planets are larger than galaxies, and this continues down to organisms, cells, brains, and eyes.

Although the speed of cells is somewhat insane, the speed of energy flowing through technology is even faster. In fact, in this regard, technology is more active than any other known sustainable system—it can allow atoms to travel farther. Today, in terms of the farthest journeys, the most persistent and active entities in the universe are computer chips.

More precisely, the items that can conduct the densest energy—maximum energy flowing through 1 gram of matter per second—among all persistent entities in the universe, from planets to stars, from daisies to cars, from brains to eyes, are found at the core of laptops. Is this possible? Compared to the tiny energy flowing through cosmic nebulae, the energy density of stars is enormous. But notably, compared to the dense energy flow and activity within herbaceous plants, the energy density of the sun pales in comparison. Despite the sun's surface energy being extremely strong, its massive mass and lifespan of 10 billion years mean that as a whole system, the sun's energy flow per gram per second is less than that of a sunflower absorbing sunlight.

Now we can think of the story of technological elements as the story of expanding cosmic vitality. At the absolute starting point of all things, the universe—if it can be called that—gathered into an extremely small space. The entire universe began with a flash, smaller than the smallest part of the smallest atom or particle. Within this minuscule point, heat, brightness, and density were uniformly distributed, and all parts had a uniform temperature. In fact, there was no space to accommodate any differences. This was utter stillness.

Without the law of exotropy, perhaps the universe would have remained in this state of stillness, and life would not have emerged. However, the expansion rate of the universe exceeds its material cooling and solidification rate, meaning that the potential difference for energy to flow from high to low is continually expanding. This ever-expanding potential difference nurtures evolution, life, and intelligence, ultimately leading to the accelerated development of technology.

Energy flows like water under the influence of gravity, moving toward the lowest and coldest layers, and will only stop when all potential differences disappear. In the first millennium after the Big Bang, the temperature differences within the universe were very small, quickly reaching equilibrium. If the universe were to stop expanding, essentially nothing interesting would happen. However, the expansion of the universe gave everything a chance to be born. By expanding in all directions—each point moving away from one another—the universe created an empty bottom, the lowest layer of the hierarchy, where energy could move downward. The faster the universe expands, the larger the bottom space becomes.
The absolute bottom of this bottom layer is the so-called ultimate state—heat death. There, absolute silence reigns, with no movement because there is no potential difference, no potential. It can be imagined as dark, silent, and completely identical in any direction. All differences—including the basic differences between "this" and "that"—completely fail. This hell of sameness is called maximum entropy. Entropy is a scientific term that describes waste, disorder, and chaos. The only known physical law in the universe without known exceptions is: all things return to their origin. Everything in the universe is steadily sliding down a channel toward the ultimate equilibrium state caused by the residual heat of the Big Bang and maximum entropy.

--

The struggle between the effort to maintain differences and the pull of entropy creates the wonders of nature. Carnivores like eagles sit at the top of the entropy pyramid: 1 eagle eats 100 trout in a year, 100 trout eat 10,000 herbivorous insects, and those 10,000 insects eat 1 million blades of grass. Thus, 1 million blades of grass indirectly sustain 1 eagle. However, the weight of this pile of grass is far greater than that of 1 eagle. This utter inefficiency is attributed to entropy. Every movement in animal life consumes a small amount of heat (entropy), meaning that the energy captured by carnivores is less than the total energy expended in the hunting process, and this discrepancy accumulates over a lifetime of repeated movements. For the life cycle to continue endlessly, it must rely on sunlight shining on small grass, continuously generating new energy as a supplement.
This inevitable waste is so striking and unavoidable, yet it is surprising that any system can exist for a long time without quickly collapsing into a cold equilibrium state. Everything interesting and healthy we see in the world—living organic organisms, civilizations, societies, intelligence, and evolution itself—retains lasting differences in the face of entropy's void of sameness. Flatworms, galaxies, and digital cameras all share this same characteristic; they maintain a state of difference largely eliminated by the high-temperature undifferentiated environment, which is the norm for most atoms in the universe. As the rest of the material world slides toward a solidified bottom layer, only a few unusual things capture energy waves, allowing them to grow and thrive.
The widespread propagation of lasting differences is the reverse movement of entropy. This phenomenon is called exotropy—outward reversal. Exotropy is another term for the technical term negentropy—meaning the negative value of entropy. The term was first introduced by philosopher Max More, although his spelling was extropy. I borrow his term and modify the spelling to emphasize its distinction from the antonym entropy. I prefer the term exotropy over negentropy because it is a positive term, expressing a dual negation of different natures, meaning "disorder does not exist." Through this description, exotropy is far more exhilarating than simply "reducing disorder." It can be considered a self-derived force that suddenly triggers a series of unlikely processes continuously.

Where Will Technology Go

Now everyone knows the saying, "As long as you stand at the wind's mouth, even a pig can fly," which emphasizes the importance of going with the flow. So what is the trend of technology?

A new technology always emerges from old technologies, and this new technology provides more opportunities for future technologies, as well as more choices for humanity. The choices and opportunities we have at this moment are greater than at any time in human history.

Suppose you are a web designer; you have this profession only because thousands of peers and predecessors have expanded the range of available opportunities. They have transcended the limitations of farms and family workshops, developing complex environments suitable for electronic devices, inspiring people to master new expertise and ways of thinking. If you are an accountant, countless predecessors have designed the logic and tools required for accounting. If you are a scientific worker, your instruments and research fields were developed by others. Photographers, extreme sports athletes, bakers, auto mechanics, nurses—whatever the profession, the work of others has given you the opportunity to realize your potential. They expand their own horizons while also expanding yours.

More advanced technologies allow us to showcase our talents, and they also selflessly unleash the potential of others, including our descendants and their descendants.

KK, surveying the historical processes of life and technology, summarizes the following common needs of technology and life:

• Improve efficiency
• Increase opportunities
• Enhance spontaneity
• Increase complexity
• Enhance diversity
• Increase specialization
• Enhance universality
• Increase freedom
• Promote symbiosis
• Enhance aesthetics
• Improve perception
• Expand structure
• Enhance evolvability

What Should We Do

Technology is an extension of life. In the four fields of genetic technology, robotics, information technology, and nanotechnology, self-replication, self-reproduction, and snowballing development have significantly increased the complexity of technological elements, and the autonomy of technology is also growing in sync. A super artificial intelligence that surpasses human intelligence will eventually emerge. Technology will free itself from human influence, just as humanity has freed itself from nature's influence. There will come a moment when technology will free itself from humanity, a moment referred to as the "singularity." Some have written books titled "The Singularity Is Near," and some have founded universities named Singularity. Even the author of "The Singularity Is Near" has made a gambler's assertion that this moment will be in 2050.

Consider that this is a frightening prospect. Because "some technologies are harmful," people face technology with either a complete ban or only under the condition that "the technology has been proven harmless" can it be used.

A complete ban is impractical. Prohibitions are essentially postponements because technological development is inevitable, even independent of humanity. No technology can be completely banned; what is meant to emerge will inevitably emerge. Crossbows were once banned in certain regions during the Middle Ages for being too cruel, but they became the main weapon in other areas. Japan during the shogunate era banned firearms, and China's Ming Dynasty prohibited maritime exploration, etc. However, it has been proven that such prohibitions are futile; bans are essentially postponements. What about nuclear weapons, which most of the world has long resisted? Nuclear weapons in the world are decreasing every year, yet the number of countries capable of developing nuclear weapons is increasing.

Another approach is equally impractical because there is no technology that has only benefits without drawbacks. DDT pesticides were highly effective against malaria but polluted soil and water resources, harming many species. People opposed chlorofluorocarbons, yet before that, they were great contributors to food preservation and summer cooling. Moreover, it is difficult to predict the potential and direction of a technology before it is fully implemented. Edison believed his phonograph would primarily be used to record the last wills of dying people, but it unexpectedly became an important entertainment tool in daily life.

Has technological development made human life worse? Will technological development lead to human extinction?

If there had been no heavy industrial period of burning coal, we would not have arrived at a cleaner, more efficient information technology era. We can sustain the world using only land. If we were to revert to being hunter-gatherers, we would need about 85 Earths to sustain 6 billion people. If we returned to early slash-and-burn agricultural lifestyles, we would need the entire Earth, including all ocean resources, to feed humanity. If we continued the green farming methods of 1950 that required little fertilizer, we would need 82% of the world's land area for farming, rather than the current 38%.

The view that Earth can only sustain 6 billion people is incorrect; Bill Gates' report expresses a similar viewpoint. We will solve future problems using future technologies.Attempting to control or reject technological elements is one-sided. It is better to learn to advance and retreat together with technological elements, rather than being in direct opposition. The correct response to poor ideas is not to stop thinking but to find better ways to coexist and correct them; however, without thinking, there is no hope. The same applies to technological elements; the collective response to harmful technology is not to abandon research and development or stop producing technological products, but to open up better, more life-friendly technologies.

So what is more life-friendly technology? KK summarizes it as follows:

• Cooperativeness. It promotes collaboration among people and institutions.
• Transparency. Its sources and ownership are clear, its usage is simple, and non-professional users can easily get started. For certain users, there are no issues that are difficult to understand.
• Decentralization. Its ownership, products, and control are decentralized and not monopolized by any professional elite.
• Flexibility. Users can easily modify, debug, enhance, or test its core; individuals can freely choose to use or abandon it.
• Redundancy. It is not the only solution, not a monopolized technology, but one of several options.
• Efficiency. Its impact on the ecosystem is minimized, utilizing energy and materials efficiently and being easy to reuse.

A 3-year-old child can unlock an iPhone independently without any guidance; the lock screen interface before iOS was a model of design. However, the current complete flattening makes no sense, and Apple's fully flattened approach is moving further away from life-friendliness. In contrast, Smartisan OS has done well what the old iOS did very well.

In facing technology, we should guide it correctly, just as we choose life in nature. Use it in a small scope and adjust based on feedback at any time, leveraging the good aspects of technology while avoiding its bad aspects. Nuclear technology is an example of this.