They're in good company. Plato railed against writing vs. oral traditions, scribes reacted to the printing press as inartistic and mechanistic, painters hated photography... hell photographers hate on cell phone photos.
Somewhat echoing some of the previous comments, perhaps the sweeping statements about ’hating’ digital technologies, instead of eyeglasses or chairs, etc, arise from an intuition that there is something different and not entirely comfortable in how they capture and direct our attention. And how technology development divides us into makers and users - and it’s rarely the makers who are the haters because they (unlike the ’mere’ users) feel a sense of agency with the tech they are building. As a recovering technologist, I’ve tried to write about those aspects.
I'm a technologist who is generally wary of AI. I think it's easy to strawman people who are concerned, but remember that we had lead gasoline and widespread pollution, too.
The key to technology is that it needs control. Its not about hating the fire, but knowing that the fire only has value when controlled.
Alas technology has rendered every 80s movie campy. Darn it tech! It's not everyday you get a movie with zero dialog. Check out Pessimists Archive for slightly more on topic reading. Great article Andrew!
I would likened those that are anti-technology to those groups of humans who used what they had at the time they had it and then when it was gone; so were they.
A tautology? Seriously? Sure, there are plenty of situations where it's up for debate, but there are plenty where it's really not.
Technology that takes other peoples work and resells it as its own. This was arguable back when photos are new, but a photo is not a painting. But in the case of digital creations, it's not. Napster was theft. Piracy networks are theft. The way many companies are using AI is theft. LLMs are a technology can that can applied well, such as protein folding. But the most visible cases right now are technology badly applied.
Technology that collects private information about people without their consent. We've given up on protecting our privacy, but that doesn't mean that it's a good use of technology. It's bad, and every time a corporate network is compromised and the info is sold to thieves, we remember that. Sometime even for entire minutes.
I'm a programmer and I write about technology. I am not a Luddite. I see bad applications of technology everywhere. I don't even want to get started with the ego-stroking motor vehicle industry.
I guess my point was that any technology can be applied badly, so I was asking for a clarification on what Collette meant by that. I could have been more clear and was in a bit of a hurry when I asked, so sorry for my inadvertent curve! I think we see things very similarly.
NP! I guess I kind of was, too. I really appreciate that we can give each other the benefit of the doubt here. That is rare and extremely valuable in today's internet, so thank you for being a part of it!
From where I sit, if you remember I’m from the early days of computing. I’m still waiting for my jet pack…computer tabulating, ARPANET, look what Zuckerberg did with a babe-net at Harvard and now we have the curse of social media. How much damage has this “technology “ done to our society? We have also data harvesting and identity theft. Both badly applied technology. ARPANET was a good start.
As a farmer, all the good effective chemicals are gone because of the “Science” of “global health”. With technology there we went backwards, though the gps systems on tractors are amazing. This element of technology, chemicals/fertilizers, also in the house of social justice, though some of your conspiracy theorists would argue control the food, control the people.
As a homeowner, what was the last “good” toilet cleaner you’ve used? Anything containing bleach is less than 5% - if that. And Jet-dry destroys the finish on glasses and some plates. Why do we need Jet-dry? Again badly applied technology, we went backwards in my opinion.
Woman's clothing - why does everything have to be stretchy? What was wrong with 100% cotton? Is synthetic fabric better? Is it easier or better technology than cotton gin produced fabric? Why are good leather shoes hard to find? though I get velcro shoes these days, velcro is good technology though it can be badly applied - ever see those guys in velcro suits throw themselves at a velcro wall? Hilarious but dumb.
To define badly applied technology is a simple, basic good technology used for nefarious or dumb reasons or my pet peeve social justice reasons.
Maybe your imaginary stereotype was talking about these things?
Good word tautology.
Though I get the gist of your post, huge net to throw.
But there is the technology storm around the turn of the twentieth century that defines modernity. I think being anti-technology in that sense has validity.
That's cool if someone wants to take that particular perspective, although I can't really grasp why that particular arbitrary line has any more meaning than any other. Did the nature of human existence change more with the invention of the telegraph, or with the invention of the printing press, for instance? Which was more disruptive on a global basis?
I don't know that answer, but it's curious that folks will try to pinpoint one particular time, when all of technology is a spectrum. Like, at what point should we have stopped trying to cure diseases or make child mortality less likely, etc? Was it before or after we determined that washing your hands prevented deaths? If it was after, then you have to accept the telegraph and stuff like that.
(not saying you're making this argument at all! I'm just saying why it baffles me)
Well done, Andrew. You make a great point in your imaginary conversation. Blanket statements are a slippery slope. It's one of my biggest quarrels with those who are bought into the side of stopping oil production 100%. The ramifications are extremely complex. You would lose all manufacturing, all transportation, all heating and air conditioning, in an instant. It's a complex problem we can no doubt get better at controlling, but it isn't black and white. Technology has a lot of negatives, but so many more positives.
Not to mention, you would also lose any and all ability to actually transition to renewables! And, of course, you'd lose an awful lot of medicines (plastics are byproducts of fossil fuels).
Slippery slopes are everywhere, and the world is full of nuance.
Lovely piece. Would you say that the progression of technology also has it's own zero-to-one moments? If that's the case, I would argue those leaps are more likely to explain technological trepidation.
Consider: from the simple capture of natural phenomena to devising tools to extend human capacities to the divorce of means and ends in modern tech (Heidegger's critique) to the technological enclosure of all society to the digital capacity to live in completely contrived worlds.
Each leap changes our human essence as much as the overall progression, and we are right to understand both what is gained and what is lost.
Oh yes. I think I'd describe technological evolution as "in fits and starts", although if you zoom out far enough, a chart looks pretty smooth. Those little stair-steps on that chart are anything but smooth when you're living through one of those disruptive moments, as we almost certainly are right now.
How interesting Andrew. I never thought of it that way. I have to admit that I still have a love/hate relationship with some technology of today though. Growing up, kids used their imaginations more. Why do they need to use their imaginations today though!? Technology does that for them! They have little cars for kids, little houses, etc. There is no need to imagine them or spend time outside. Why read a book either! Kids can damage their eyes in front of a screen all day instead! It's not like adults should think of their kids health or anything! It only might be shortening their lifespan that's all... Don't get me wrong technology is GREAT but living is great too. There should be time limits on computers, ipads, phones, etc. At the same time all these things on social media make it easier for kids to bully eachother. Due to that, bullying is 3000 times worse which is anything but great! That has taken I don't know how many lives due to the fact that it emotionally harms the children who are bullied. That's I don't know how many parents, siblings, etc. left behind to grieve. That along with other reasons would be why I have a love/hate relationship with the technology of today. At the same time, technology has helped Scientists learn more about DNA, vaccines that have saved I don't know how many lives, etc. It also gives those like ME the option to work. If a person who can not drive due to a disability happens to be educated about scheduling, etc. working online, interviewing, etc. the option to work is usually there. When I was a kid, I never imagined that was possible! I bet those who knew me didn't either but due to technology I have also been hacked many times. That hacking technology has stopped me from getting help in many areas. One would be SNAP. My SNAP card was hacked into so I can't get benefits from it. My voting information was changed on it's own so I couldn't vote once. How can they get the correct votes if technology to change those votes is available to the idiots willing to be thoughtless enough to use it!? I'm hoping that doesn't happen again! I've had to change my credit cards a few times due to fraudulent charges. I just got a letter saying the last charge wasn't seen as fraudulent so they're going to take it out of my account. I have no idea if that letter is real or fake. I can't put a card here on substack any longer and had to take down most of my stores. If you go on my site, my store is not up there because I won't sell anything until this is fixed. I won't risk someone hacking into anothers account, not that I don't seriously need the money. You'll notice that there is also only ONE comment because I'm only given access to contact some in my life. Technology blocks any form of contact I make with another unless it is in person. I can't sell anything anymore...ANY form of making money is not available to me due to the technology that truly does make many lives easier. Money = freedom to me because I have to pay for everything. Even if that freedom is taken away from me at that moment, I love the idea of that technology and know when the technology is found, people will know how to put a stop to such idiotic nonsense. I will probably have one dang well paying job too because I'm not one to forget everything I've worked my life for. Although, some would wonder there due to my health. I wonder if they think the same thing about Celine Dion having worked for years in her health which is shown on her new documentary. You could also ask the same thing about Bob Fosse. I wonder if people actually have the guts to question if he worked on what he did due to having Epilepsy which is exactly what I have. If it didn't stop them, why the heck should it stop me? As far as this being the land of the free, I along with many are not financially free. I am free to imagine and stay positive. Even if living in a studio that is attached to an old house that's breaking down I can remember life. Taking breaks from being online helps there. Ya need a clear mind to work correctly so breaks are very important. Only technology could help me to be free and that has been taken away at the moment. May I be free in every way one day, may we all be. I don't care who disagrees with me but I think that some forms of technology are 100% evil. Due to that I still and will always have a love/hate relationship with it.
yes, I think all the changes in total and especially the move toward hourly wages, city life, electricity, the change toward clock time, the moving away from religion, were especially jarring. I think people select how they are anti-technology all the time and do not feel they have to reject everything. It might be that anti-modernity is what I am talking about more than technology. I think people do not make those distinctions themselves and do not think that deeply. I think many, many people recognize some purity of something has been lost in favor of technology and it is meaningful to them regardless of how their views might be picked apart.
I agree that people do not think very deeply. I might argue that that's the very thing I'm trying to accomplish by writing every day as I do: to get folks thinking more deeply. I hope that's happening now with us, too! We are having what hopefully amounts to a more meaningful conversation so we challenge ourselves and rethink some assumptions about what technology is, for instance.
I agree that changes were jarring, but disagree completely that every change was bad. I guess that's my only point: if someone says they are anti-technology, they mean they want to become inhuman. Technology is what makes us who we are.
This is best conversation I've had on here. I see what you are saying. I am trying to enlighten too in the realm of mental health, but unsuccessfully because people just don't read what I write. I think I am talking about what people do and how we are, that's just the way I think. I certainly agree that technology has been good, but I am also a Romantic and know people miss how they construct the past as they see it.
I love questioning modern assumptions, although I think most of them are fantastic, especially stuff like human rights. That's a pretty recent invention.
I would go back about 2.5 million years ago and call the invention of stone tools the first technology as they allow us to cut, scrape, hunt, etc. Becoming bipedal was the most significant change since it freed our hands to build tools and technology and made us more energy efficient, able to see further, etc.
Would be ever know precisely? The answer is probably a No. However, this is the best we know today which may change in the future as we find new sites or technology improves to become more precise.
Explore some examples of Early Stone Age tools. The earliest stone toolmaking developed by at least 2.6 million years ago. The Early Stone Age began with the most basic stone implements made by early humans. These Oldowan toolkits include hammerstones, stone cores, and sharp stone flakes. By about 1.76 million years ago, early humans began to make Acheulean handaxes and other large cutting tools.
I think using stone tools probably helped us control the fire (for example, did we use any stone tools to spark a fire?). Also, fire control is a more complex process, and except for humans, no other animal can do it, so it would have come later than stone tools, which were used and built by animals and humans—just my best guess.
No, I think we didn't spark the first controlled fires. I think the first cases were captured from wildfires, so you wouldn't need any stone tools.
What's interesting to me is that we are both kind of circling around 3 very good candidates for zero to one technology: controlled fire, language, and tool use. I think you can make the case that any of those 3 came about first, at least based on logical deduction, and I don't think we know for sure.
Yes, I agree that the first controlled fires came from wildfires as you have to use something existing to start using it, but that was probably not something we could carry and light on demand as hunter-gatherers did not stay in one place for long, so they had to find other ways to light and control the fire.
Language is another story. I think some kind of sign language along with the ability to use facial expressions to pass a message or two may have pre-dated any tools or fire. However, it is again my best guess.
What if fire had to come first, so we could gather around with one another and start creating language? It could be that both technologies had to evolve at the same time in order for either to exist. Maybe that's true for complex tool use, too.
They're in good company. Plato railed against writing vs. oral traditions, scribes reacted to the printing press as inartistic and mechanistic, painters hated photography... hell photographers hate on cell phone photos.
Somewhat echoing some of the previous comments, perhaps the sweeping statements about ’hating’ digital technologies, instead of eyeglasses or chairs, etc, arise from an intuition that there is something different and not entirely comfortable in how they capture and direct our attention. And how technology development divides us into makers and users - and it’s rarely the makers who are the haters because they (unlike the ’mere’ users) feel a sense of agency with the tech they are building. As a recovering technologist, I’ve tried to write about those aspects.
I agree very much with that view. I mainly wanted to point out that technology is a spectrum, and nobody is really completely anti-tech.
I'm a technologist who is generally wary of AI. I think it's easy to strawman people who are concerned, but remember that we had lead gasoline and widespread pollution, too.
The key to technology is that it needs control. Its not about hating the fire, but knowing that the fire only has value when controlled.
I once again interrupt your eloquent and apt observations with a crass 80's cultural reference but it will change your life
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082484/
Ron Perlman!
I don’t know about life changing, but it was campy. I saw it at the movie theater on campus.
Alas technology has rendered every 80s movie campy. Darn it tech! It's not everyday you get a movie with zero dialog. Check out Pessimists Archive for slightly more on topic reading. Great article Andrew!
Technology hasn’t rendered every 80’s movie as campy. I saw that movie as a college student in 1981. It was campy then.
I briefly looked at Pessimists Archive. (the .org) I’m 64, I lived through some of what is showcased there. I’m definitely not their audience.
I would've been 16 when I saw it at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood (BIG) screen. Made an impression
I would likened those that are anti-technology to those groups of humans who used what they had at the time they had it and then when it was gone; so were they.
What I really hate is the comment feature on Substack!
Like, what's the point?
Conveying your own thoughts in response to an article you just read so that the author and their followers get to see and understand your opinion?
Uh, no thanks.
You can keep your commenting voodoo technology to yourselves, thank you very much.
I’d change your imaginary stereotypes sentence to “I’m against all badly applied technology“, then you’d have a conversation.
How would you define "badly applied technology"? In principle, I agree, but it also seems kinda like a tautology.
A tautology? Seriously? Sure, there are plenty of situations where it's up for debate, but there are plenty where it's really not.
Technology that takes other peoples work and resells it as its own. This was arguable back when photos are new, but a photo is not a painting. But in the case of digital creations, it's not. Napster was theft. Piracy networks are theft. The way many companies are using AI is theft. LLMs are a technology can that can applied well, such as protein folding. But the most visible cases right now are technology badly applied.
Technology that collects private information about people without their consent. We've given up on protecting our privacy, but that doesn't mean that it's a good use of technology. It's bad, and every time a corporate network is compromised and the info is sold to thieves, we remember that. Sometime even for entire minutes.
I'm a programmer and I write about technology. I am not a Luddite. I see bad applications of technology everywhere. I don't even want to get started with the ego-stroking motor vehicle industry.
I guess my point was that any technology can be applied badly, so I was asking for a clarification on what Collette meant by that. I could have been more clear and was in a bit of a hurry when I asked, so sorry for my inadvertent curve! I think we see things very similarly.
I wasn't trying to be harsh or combative. I was just really taken aback.
NP! I guess I kind of was, too. I really appreciate that we can give each other the benefit of the doubt here. That is rare and extremely valuable in today's internet, so thank you for being a part of it!
From where I sit, if you remember I’m from the early days of computing. I’m still waiting for my jet pack…computer tabulating, ARPANET, look what Zuckerberg did with a babe-net at Harvard and now we have the curse of social media. How much damage has this “technology “ done to our society? We have also data harvesting and identity theft. Both badly applied technology. ARPANET was a good start.
As a farmer, all the good effective chemicals are gone because of the “Science” of “global health”. With technology there we went backwards, though the gps systems on tractors are amazing. This element of technology, chemicals/fertilizers, also in the house of social justice, though some of your conspiracy theorists would argue control the food, control the people.
As a homeowner, what was the last “good” toilet cleaner you’ve used? Anything containing bleach is less than 5% - if that. And Jet-dry destroys the finish on glasses and some plates. Why do we need Jet-dry? Again badly applied technology, we went backwards in my opinion.
Woman's clothing - why does everything have to be stretchy? What was wrong with 100% cotton? Is synthetic fabric better? Is it easier or better technology than cotton gin produced fabric? Why are good leather shoes hard to find? though I get velcro shoes these days, velcro is good technology though it can be badly applied - ever see those guys in velcro suits throw themselves at a velcro wall? Hilarious but dumb.
To define badly applied technology is a simple, basic good technology used for nefarious or dumb reasons or my pet peeve social justice reasons.
Maybe your imaginary stereotype was talking about these things?
Good word tautology.
Though I get the gist of your post, huge net to throw.
Thanks for clarifying! I always like to dive into language use (I guess that's fairly obvious by now; I really can't help myself).
But there is the technology storm around the turn of the twentieth century that defines modernity. I think being anti-technology in that sense has validity.
That's cool if someone wants to take that particular perspective, although I can't really grasp why that particular arbitrary line has any more meaning than any other. Did the nature of human existence change more with the invention of the telegraph, or with the invention of the printing press, for instance? Which was more disruptive on a global basis?
I don't know that answer, but it's curious that folks will try to pinpoint one particular time, when all of technology is a spectrum. Like, at what point should we have stopped trying to cure diseases or make child mortality less likely, etc? Was it before or after we determined that washing your hands prevented deaths? If it was after, then you have to accept the telegraph and stuff like that.
(not saying you're making this argument at all! I'm just saying why it baffles me)
Well done, Andrew. You make a great point in your imaginary conversation. Blanket statements are a slippery slope. It's one of my biggest quarrels with those who are bought into the side of stopping oil production 100%. The ramifications are extremely complex. You would lose all manufacturing, all transportation, all heating and air conditioning, in an instant. It's a complex problem we can no doubt get better at controlling, but it isn't black and white. Technology has a lot of negatives, but so many more positives.
Not to mention, you would also lose any and all ability to actually transition to renewables! And, of course, you'd lose an awful lot of medicines (plastics are byproducts of fossil fuels).
Slippery slopes are everywhere, and the world is full of nuance.
I usually ask, "How did you get here?" Using wheels?
Art to me means "ARTifacts" and we have been producing them (through technology) since we could record what we're thinking.
The symbol is our greatest superpower.
Technology isn't the problem. Man's ethics is. And thus AI is a scourge being perpetrated on the world.
It's always us, every time.
So true. Maybe the Dinkles of this world should be in charge.
I mean, she's in charge over here!
Well, that’s a start. We were owned by cats years ago, but we outlived them. No other cats want us. Sigh.
Lovely piece. Would you say that the progression of technology also has it's own zero-to-one moments? If that's the case, I would argue those leaps are more likely to explain technological trepidation.
Consider: from the simple capture of natural phenomena to devising tools to extend human capacities to the divorce of means and ends in modern tech (Heidegger's critique) to the technological enclosure of all society to the digital capacity to live in completely contrived worlds.
Each leap changes our human essence as much as the overall progression, and we are right to understand both what is gained and what is lost.
Oh yes. I think I'd describe technological evolution as "in fits and starts", although if you zoom out far enough, a chart looks pretty smooth. Those little stair-steps on that chart are anything but smooth when you're living through one of those disruptive moments, as we almost certainly are right now.
How interesting Andrew. I never thought of it that way. I have to admit that I still have a love/hate relationship with some technology of today though. Growing up, kids used their imaginations more. Why do they need to use their imaginations today though!? Technology does that for them! They have little cars for kids, little houses, etc. There is no need to imagine them or spend time outside. Why read a book either! Kids can damage their eyes in front of a screen all day instead! It's not like adults should think of their kids health or anything! It only might be shortening their lifespan that's all... Don't get me wrong technology is GREAT but living is great too. There should be time limits on computers, ipads, phones, etc. At the same time all these things on social media make it easier for kids to bully eachother. Due to that, bullying is 3000 times worse which is anything but great! That has taken I don't know how many lives due to the fact that it emotionally harms the children who are bullied. That's I don't know how many parents, siblings, etc. left behind to grieve. That along with other reasons would be why I have a love/hate relationship with the technology of today. At the same time, technology has helped Scientists learn more about DNA, vaccines that have saved I don't know how many lives, etc. It also gives those like ME the option to work. If a person who can not drive due to a disability happens to be educated about scheduling, etc. working online, interviewing, etc. the option to work is usually there. When I was a kid, I never imagined that was possible! I bet those who knew me didn't either but due to technology I have also been hacked many times. That hacking technology has stopped me from getting help in many areas. One would be SNAP. My SNAP card was hacked into so I can't get benefits from it. My voting information was changed on it's own so I couldn't vote once. How can they get the correct votes if technology to change those votes is available to the idiots willing to be thoughtless enough to use it!? I'm hoping that doesn't happen again! I've had to change my credit cards a few times due to fraudulent charges. I just got a letter saying the last charge wasn't seen as fraudulent so they're going to take it out of my account. I have no idea if that letter is real or fake. I can't put a card here on substack any longer and had to take down most of my stores. If you go on my site, my store is not up there because I won't sell anything until this is fixed. I won't risk someone hacking into anothers account, not that I don't seriously need the money. You'll notice that there is also only ONE comment because I'm only given access to contact some in my life. Technology blocks any form of contact I make with another unless it is in person. I can't sell anything anymore...ANY form of making money is not available to me due to the technology that truly does make many lives easier. Money = freedom to me because I have to pay for everything. Even if that freedom is taken away from me at that moment, I love the idea of that technology and know when the technology is found, people will know how to put a stop to such idiotic nonsense. I will probably have one dang well paying job too because I'm not one to forget everything I've worked my life for. Although, some would wonder there due to my health. I wonder if they think the same thing about Celine Dion having worked for years in her health which is shown on her new documentary. You could also ask the same thing about Bob Fosse. I wonder if people actually have the guts to question if he worked on what he did due to having Epilepsy which is exactly what I have. If it didn't stop them, why the heck should it stop me? As far as this being the land of the free, I along with many are not financially free. I am free to imagine and stay positive. Even if living in a studio that is attached to an old house that's breaking down I can remember life. Taking breaks from being online helps there. Ya need a clear mind to work correctly so breaks are very important. Only technology could help me to be free and that has been taken away at the moment. May I be free in every way one day, may we all be. I don't care who disagrees with me but I think that some forms of technology are 100% evil. Due to that I still and will always have a love/hate relationship with it.
Along the line, the meaning technology has been morphed into anything digital. People seem to have forgotten what it really meant. Great article!
Hey, thanks!
yes, I think all the changes in total and especially the move toward hourly wages, city life, electricity, the change toward clock time, the moving away from religion, were especially jarring. I think people select how they are anti-technology all the time and do not feel they have to reject everything. It might be that anti-modernity is what I am talking about more than technology. I think people do not make those distinctions themselves and do not think that deeply. I think many, many people recognize some purity of something has been lost in favor of technology and it is meaningful to them regardless of how their views might be picked apart.
I agree that people do not think very deeply. I might argue that that's the very thing I'm trying to accomplish by writing every day as I do: to get folks thinking more deeply. I hope that's happening now with us, too! We are having what hopefully amounts to a more meaningful conversation so we challenge ourselves and rethink some assumptions about what technology is, for instance.
I agree that changes were jarring, but disagree completely that every change was bad. I guess that's my only point: if someone says they are anti-technology, they mean they want to become inhuman. Technology is what makes us who we are.
This is best conversation I've had on here. I see what you are saying. I am trying to enlighten too in the realm of mental health, but unsuccessfully because people just don't read what I write. I think I am talking about what people do and how we are, that's just the way I think. I certainly agree that technology has been good, but I am also a Romantic and know people miss how they construct the past as they see it.
I think it's a case of me shouting, "Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater!"
I should mention anti-modernity is a favorite topic of mine.
I love questioning modern assumptions, although I think most of them are fantastic, especially stuff like human rights. That's a pretty recent invention.
I would go back about 2.5 million years ago and call the invention of stone tools the first technology as they allow us to cut, scrape, hunt, etc. Becoming bipedal was the most significant change since it freed our hands to build tools and technology and made us more energy efficient, able to see further, etc.
No disagreement about how important tool use in general was, but is it entirely clear that this predates controlled fire? I'm not sure.
Would be ever know precisely? The answer is probably a No. However, this is the best we know today which may change in the future as we find new sites or technology improves to become more precise.
Claims for the earliest definitive evidence of control of fire by a member of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homorange from 1.7 to 2.0 million years ago (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year#mya).https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_humans#cite_note-James-1 Evidence for the "microscopic traces of wood ash" as controlled use of fire by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus, beginning roughly 1 million years ago, has wide scholarly support.
For stone tools is about 2.6 Million years.
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/stone-tools/early-stone-age-tools
Explore some examples of Early Stone Age tools. The earliest stone toolmaking developed by at least 2.6 million years ago. The Early Stone Age began with the most basic stone implements made by early humans. These Oldowan toolkits include hammerstones, stone cores, and sharp stone flakes. By about 1.76 million years ago, early humans began to make Acheulean handaxes and other large cutting tools.
I think using stone tools probably helped us control the fire (for example, did we use any stone tools to spark a fire?). Also, fire control is a more complex process, and except for humans, no other animal can do it, so it would have come later than stone tools, which were used and built by animals and humans—just my best guess.
No, I think we didn't spark the first controlled fires. I think the first cases were captured from wildfires, so you wouldn't need any stone tools.
What's interesting to me is that we are both kind of circling around 3 very good candidates for zero to one technology: controlled fire, language, and tool use. I think you can make the case that any of those 3 came about first, at least based on logical deduction, and I don't think we know for sure.
Yes, I agree that the first controlled fires came from wildfires as you have to use something existing to start using it, but that was probably not something we could carry and light on demand as hunter-gatherers did not stay in one place for long, so they had to find other ways to light and control the fire.
Language is another story. I think some kind of sign language along with the ability to use facial expressions to pass a message or two may have pre-dated any tools or fire. However, it is again my best guess.
What if fire had to come first, so we could gather around with one another and start creating language? It could be that both technologies had to evolve at the same time in order for either to exist. Maybe that's true for complex tool use, too.
People who tell me they hate technology and yearn for the good old days are also telling me they dislike logic and critical thinking.
Also: what good old days do they mean? Like, back when a papercut would just kill you?
As my Dad always said, "These are the good ole days."