Humanity through the lens of technology
Humanity is a story of technology development.
Bipedal age → Stone age → Bronze age → Iron age → Silicon age
We snicker at the "primitive" tools of stone-age Neanderthals, but in the future, we will harbor the same sentiments about our dearly beloved Silicon age.
Future humans will recognize the great leap that silicon made from technologies before, but from the perspective of how inadequate these technologies seem. Silicon-based devices will be like black & white TV in the full-color spectrum of the future.
Harder, better, faster, stronger
Forget mere tools, technology is the coolest thing we do as humans. Technology is how we push our limits of possibility and make continuous improvements. The rate of development through technology moves ever faster and, ultimately, makes us more capable of tackling new challenges.
Technology thrives when we identify clear problems and build focused solutions.
Tech resources: an ingredient and recipe problem
We're building for today and the future, right? That means we have to think about the durability of our solutions, and...ahem, let's just say it is an area for improvement.
Technology development, as we conceptualize it, has an extraction problem. Humans take something we find - our favorites are non-renewable resources - and we change it into something that makes our lives easier and more livable. The challenge (this is why it's an extraction problem) is that when the object's life cycle is over it is generally unreturnable to its resource state.
This was an ignorable problem for millennia(1). The resources we first used were abundant and the tools lasted for a long time. When the technology is a sword, it can be passed down through generations with great efficacy.
Today we face a change of conditions so significant our social psyche is still generations behind. No longer content with metal swords, we have electronic devices on our laps, in our pockets, and on our wrists(2). These devices do not pass through generations(3) but rather are used and discarded after a few years.
Humans and lifespan are on the rise
And then there are the humans - my how our population has grown. It's like we found out how many ants and cockroaches there are and said "challenge accepted!" This is an important point because it's not about finding enough rocks for a few thousand humans but rather finding enough copper, palladium, and indium for >7 billion humans(4).
Behold, the perfect hockey stick graph!
This graph doesn't capture the incredible breakthroughs in longevity we've recently made. Our population growth is about to increase at an even faster rate as we begin to slow aging on the mass scale.
Recycling is great - but only kicks the ball down the road
Okay, so we have a resource problem, but recycling can solve this for us, right? Eh, it's pretty complicated. To start, we'd have to actually recycle our electronics instead of throwing them in the trash. But even from there, not all items are equally recyclable - elemental items like metals fare pretty well but plastics tend to deteriorate. The processes, chemicals, energy, and heat required to recycle have sustainability consequences as well. Perfect adherence to recycling programs will buy us time but is not the ultimate solution.
In a world that ignores the laws of physics, rejects chemistry, and laughs at biology, this would already be an issue of resource limitation. But in our very real world, extraction and the massive rearrangement of atoms have very real consequences. Consequences not easily solved by a great space program - it's hard enough finding a planet with conditions livable for humans. Good luck finding one with the elemental resources on which our technology relies.
Expanding the scope: how new tech will fix old tech
Let's pause for a recap because it took a minute to set the stage. Limited resources, non-renewable. Lots of humans, population still on the rise. Lots of devices, also on the rise. It's a bind. While we're at this stratospherically high level of thinking, we should define what it means to be a technology. This is written in American English, so I'm citing Merriam-Webster(5):
1a: the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : b: a capability given by the practical application of knowledge
If denotations and connotations aren't your thing, consider it this way: when we study the fundamental nature of the world, that's science. When we design, manipulate materials, and perform functions for our intended outcomes, that's engineering. When we trade, sell, or sell access to our engineered creations, that's the technology industry.
Science. When we study the fundamental nature of the world, that's science.
Engineering. When we design, manipulate materials, and perform functions for our intended outcomes, that's engineering.
Technology. When we trade, sell, or sell access to our engineered creations, that's the technology industry.
science → engineering → technology
For example, science unlocked the nature of color as the human eye sees it. This is the source of RGB - the human eye contains receptors for red, green, and blue(6). Further study lead to engineering to project these colors and through color televisions, we brought this as a mainstream technology.
If you've wondered when I'm going to get to the damn point I offered in the title - the next paragraph is for you.
Biotechnology is the future for all technologies
It sounds too good to be true and more than a little hyperbolic. I'm doubling down. Why? Because today humans, society, and even biologists barely understand the depths and potential of biology. The future is bright, y'all.
One of the features of biology as a technology stack is that biology doesn't merely evade the challenge of resource limitation and renewal.
"Biology is the organized construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of the same atoms over and over and over again in such a way that new things evolve." - me
It's either a crude or elegant way to make the point, but to quote Modest Mouse "Someday you will die and somehow something's gonna steal your carbon." (jump to 3:45)
I know we don't like thinking about death but let's face it - the silicon on your lap was not the silicon in the first computer. But the carbon in your body? Definitely came from another biological entity that you ate (sorry vegans, plants 🌱 are biology too).
To continue forward as a species, on Earth and other planets, we must begin to build like biology. Better yet is to build with biology, so that we can use what nature has already developed. A brief sample:
sensory (light, sound, scent, taste, tactile, temperature, and magnetic)
motor (object manipulation large and small, ambulation on land, flight in the air, and swimming in the sea)
material (👋 we build our houses with trees, and already can eat with utensils made of plant starch)
computational (your brain needs but ~12 watts (7))
energetic (solar, thermal, biochemical, electrical)
Today we have the ability to build things ranging from diagnostics to lawn decor with biology, using only technologies that have already been successfully scaled. Don't get me wrong, our current abilities remain limited to what they will become, but they are enough to begin building commercially viable products. And this is the nature of all new technologies. Our phones hardly resemble their calculator ancestors.
Our current limitation is that of our own imaginations. We must rethink how we build by rethinking the materials with which we build. It's simply inevitable.
Biology is the future of all technology.
(1) The good ole days.
(2) ...if you're in a long-distance relationship you may have explored even more areas of human anatomy on or in which to place a device.
(3) Semantically debatable if you're in the (2) camp.
(4) "But not all of us have devices," you say. "It's the wealthy countries who are the problem," you add. Correct on both points except you forget that the aspiration for these technologies far exceeds their ownership. Technology remains on a strong growth path.
(5) For the lexicographers out there.
(6) It's true, some humans have receptors for yellow as well.
(7) You will find some sources online that calculate ~20 watts. These estimates contain a critical error: those estimates are based on a total caloric consumption of >2000 calories per day. That level of energy consumptions includes the metabolic demands of activity in addition to rest, however the brain's consumption of energy is not as variable as in muscle tissues. More accurate estimates are premised on resting energetic needs of ~1300 calories per day, yielding a result of ~12 watts.