Kevin Kelly tells technology’s epic story


I want to talk about my investigations into what technology means in our lives — not just our immediate life,
but in the cosmic sense, in the kind of long history of the world and our place in the world. What is this stuff? What is the significance? And so, I want to kind of
go through my little story of what I found out. One of the first things
I started to investigate was the history of the name of technology. In the United States,
there is a State of the Union address given by every president since 1790. And each one of those is kind of
summing up the most important things for the United States at that time. If you search for the word “technology,”
it was not used until 1952. So, technology was sort of absent
from everybody’s thinking until 1952, which happened to be the year of my birth. And obviously, technology
had existed before then, but we weren’t aware of it. And so it was sort of an awakening
of this force in our life. I actually did research to find out
the first use of the word “technology.” It was in 1829, and it was invented by a guy
who was starting a curriculum — a course, bringing together all the kinds
of arts and crafts, and industry — and he called it “Technology.” And that’s the very first use of the word. So what is this stuff that we’re all consumed by
and bothered by? Alan Kay calls it, “Technology
is anything that was invented after you were born.” (Laughter) Which is sort of the idea we normally
have about what technology is: it’s all that new stuff. It’s not roads, or penicillin, or factory tires; it’s the new stuff. My friend Danny Hillis
says kind of a similar one, he says, “Technology is anything
that doesn’t work yet.” (Laughter) Which is, again,
a sense that it’s all new. But we know that it’s just not new. It actually goes way back, and what I want to suggest is,
it goes a long way back. So, another way to think
about technology, what it means, is to imagine a world without technology. If we were to eliminate every single bit
of technology in the world today — and I mean everything,
from blades to scrapers to cloth — we, as a species,
would not live very long. We would die by the billions,
and very quickly: the wolves would get us,
we would be defenseless, we would be unable to grow
enough food or find enough food. Even the hunter-gatherers
used some elementary tools. So, they had minimal technology, but they had some technology. And if we study
those hunter-gatherer tribes and the Neanderthal,
which are very similar to early man, we find out a very curious thing
about this world without technology, and this is a kind of a curve
of their average age. There are no Neanderthal fossils
that are older than 40 years old that we’ve ever found, and the average age of most of these
hunter-gatherer tribes is 20 to 30. There are very few young infants,
because they die — high mortality rate — and there’s very few old people. So the profile is sort of for your average
San Francisco neighborhood: a lot of young people. And if you go there, you say,
“Hey, everybody’s really healthy.” Well, that’s because they’re all young. Same thing with the hunter-gatherer
tribes and early man: you didn’t live beyond the age of 30. So it was a world without grandparents. And grandparents are very important, because they are the transmitter
of cultural evolution and information. Imagine a world where basically
everybody was 20 to 30 years old. How much learning can you do? You can’t do very much
learning in your own life, it’s so short, and there’s nobody to pass on
what you do learn. So that’s one aspect. It was a very short life. But at the same time, anthropologists know that most hunter-gatherer
tribes of the world, with that very little technology, actually did not spend a very long time
gathering the food they needed: three to six hours a day. Some anthropologists call that
the original affluent society, because they had
bankers’ hours, basically. So it was possible to get enough food. But when the scarcity came, when the highs and lows
and the droughts came, then people went into starvation. And that’s why they didn’t live very long. So what technology brought, through the very simple tools
like these stone tools here — even something as small as this — the early bands of humans were actually
able to eliminate to extinction about 250 megafauna animals
in North America when they first arrived 10,000 years ago. So, long before the industrial age, we’ve been affecting
the planet on a global scale with just a small amount of technology. The other thing that the early man
invented was fire. And fire was used to clear out, and again, affected the ecology of grass
and whole continents, and was used in cooking. It enabled us to actually
eat all kinds of things. It was, in a certain sense,
in a McLuhan sense, an external stomach, in the sense that it was cooking food
that we could not eat otherwise. And if we didn’t have fire,
we actually could not live. Our bodies have adapted
to these new diets. Our bodies have changed
in the last 10,000 years. So, with that little bit of technology, humans went from a small band
of 10,000 or so — the same number
as Neanderthals everywhere — and we suddenly exploded. With the invention of language
around 50,000 years ago, the number of humans exploded, and very quickly became
the dominant species on the planet. And they migrated
into the rest of the world at two kilometers per year until, within several tens
of thousands of years, we occupied every single
watershed on the planet and became the most dominant species, with a very small amount of technology. And even at that time,
with the introduction of agriculture, 8,000, 10,000 years ago, we started to see climate change. So climate change is not a new thing;
what’s new is just the degree of it. Even during the agricultural age,
there was climate change. So already, small amounts of technology
were transforming the world. And what this means, and where I’m going, is that technology has become
the most powerful force in the world. All the things we see today
that are changing our lives, we can always trace back to the introduction
of some new technology. So it’s a force, that is the most powerful force
that has been unleashed on this planet, and in such a degree, that I think it’s become who we are. In fact, our humanity and everything
that we think about ourselves, is something we’ve invented. So we’ve invented ourselves. Of all the animals
that we’ve domesticated, the most important animal has been us. So humanity is our greatest invention, but of course, we’re not done yet. We’re still inventing, and this is what technology
is allowing us to do; it’s continually to reinvent ourselves. It’s a very, very strong force. I call this entire thing —
us humans as our technology, everything that we’ve made,
gadgets in our lives — we call that the technium. That’s this world. My working definition of technology is: anything useful that a human mind makes. It’s not just hammers
and gadgets, like laptops. But it’s also law. And, of course, cities are ways
to make things more useful to us. While this is something
that comes from our mind, it also has its roots
deeply into the cosmos. It goes back. The origins and roots of technology
go back to the Big Bang, in this way, in that they are part
of this self-organizing thread that starts at the Big Bang
and goes through galaxies and stars, into life, into us. And the three major phases
of the early universe was energy, when the dominant
force was energy; then the dominant force,
as it cooled, became matter; and then, with the invention
of life four billion years ago, the dominant force in our neighborhood
became information. That’s what life is: an information process
that was restructuring and making new order. So, energy and matter,
Einstein showed were equivalent, and now new sciences of quantum computing
show that entropy and information and matter and energy are all interrelated. So it’s one long continuum. You put energy
into the right kind of system, and out comes wasted heat, entropy, and extropy, which is order. It’s the increased order. Where does this order come from? Its roots go way back. We actually don’t know. But we do know that the self-organization trend
throughout the universe is long, and it began with things like galaxies; they maintained their order
for billions of years. Stars are basically
nuclear fission machines that self-organize and self-sustain
themselves for billions of years: order against the extropy of the world. And flowers and plants
are the same thing, extended, and technology is basically
an extension of life. One trend that we notice
in all those things is that the amount of energy
per gram per second that flows through this is actually increasing. The amount of energy is increasing
through this little sequence. And the amount of energy per gram
per second that flows through life is actually greater than a star — because of the star’s long lifespan, the energy density in life
is actually higher than a star. And the energy density
that we see in the greatest amount anywhere in the universe is actually in a PC chip. There is more energy flowing
through, per gram per second, than anything that we have
any other experience with. And so, what I would suggest is that if you want to see
where technology is going, we continue that trajectory, and we say, “Well, it’s going
to become more energy-dense, that’s where it’s going.” And so what I’ve done is,
I’ve taken the same kinds of things and looked at other aspects
of evolutionary life and say, “What are the general trends
in evolutionary life?” And there are things moving
towards greater complexity, moving towards greater diversity,
moving towards greater specialization, sentience, ubiquity,
and most important, evolvability. Those very same things
are also present in technology. That’s where technology is going. In fact, technology
is accelerating all the aspects of life. And we can see that happening; just as there’s diversity in life,
there’s more diversity in things we make. Things in life start off
being general cells, and they become specialized: you have tissue cells,
muscle, brain cells. The same thing happens
with, say, a hammer, which is general at first
and becomes more specific. So I would like to say
that while there are six kingdoms of life, we can think of technology
basically as a seventh kingdom of life. It’s a branching off from the human form. But technology has its own agenda,
like anything, like life itself. For instance, right now,
three-quarters of the energy that we use is actually used to feed
the technium itself. In transportation, it’s not to move us; it’s to move the stuff we make or buy. I use the word “want.” Technology wants. This is a robot that wants to plug
itself in to get more power. Your cat wants more food. A bacterium, which has
no consciousness at all, wants to move towards light. It has an urge,
and technology has an urge. At the same time,
it wants to give us things, and what it gives us
is basically progress. You can take all kinds of curves,
and they’re all pointing up. There’s really no dispute about progress, if we discount the cost of that. And that’s the thing
that bothers most people, is that progress is really real,
but we wonder and question: What are the environmental costs of it? I did a survey of the number
of species of artifacts in my house, and there’s 6,000. Other people have come up with 10,000. When King Henry of England died, he had 18,000 things in his house, but that was the entire
wealth of England, so … (Laughter) And with that entire wealth of England, King Henry could not buy any antibiotics, he could not buy refrigeration, he could not buy
a trip of a thousand miles, whereas this rickshaw wallah in India
could save up and buy antibiotics and he could buy refrigeration. He could buy things that King Henry,
in all his wealth, could never buy. That’s what progress is about. So, technology is selfish;
technology is generous. That conflict, that tension,
will be with us forever: sometimes it wants to do
what it wants to do, and sometimes it’s going
to do things for us. We have confusion
about what we should think about a new technology. Right now the default position
when a new technology comes along, is people talk about
the precautionary principle, which is very common in Europe, which says, basically, “Don’t do anything. When you meet a new technology, stop, until it can be proven
that it does no harm.” I think that really leads nowhere. But a better way is
what I call the proactionary principle, which is, you engage with technology. You try it out. You obviously do what the precautionary
principle suggests, you try to anticipate it, but after anticipating it, you constantly asses it, not just once, but eternally. And when it diverts from what you want, we prioritize risk,
we evaluate not just the new stuff, but the old stuff. We fix it; but most importantly, we relocate it. And what I mean by that is, we find a new job for it. Nuclear energy, fission,
is a really bad idea for bombs. But it may be a pretty good idea
relocated into sustainable nuclear energy for electricity, instead of burning coal. When we have a bad idea, the response to a bad idea is not no ideas,
it’s not to stop thinking. The response to a bad idea — like, say, a tungsten lightbulb — is a better idea. So, better ideas
is really always the response to technology we don’t like; it’s basically better technology. And actually, in a certain sense,
technology is a kind of a method for generating better ideas, if you can think about it that way. So, maybe spraying DDT
on crops is a really bad idea. But DDT sprayed on local homes — there’s nothing better
to eliminate malaria, besides insect DDT-impregnated
mosquito nets. But that’s a really good idea;
that’s a good job for technology. So our job as humans
is to parent our mind children, to find them good friends, to find them a good job. And so, every technology
is sort of a creative force looking for the right job. That’s actually my son, right here. (Laughter) There are no bad technologies, just as there are no bad children. We don’t say children are neutral;
children are positive. We just have to find them the right place. And so, what technology gives us
over the long term — over this sort of extended evolution
from the beginning of time, through the invention
of the plants and animals, and the evolution of life,
the evolution of brains — what that is constantly giving us
is increasing differences: It’s increasing diversity,
it’s increasing options, it’s increasing choices, opportunities,
possibilities and freedoms. That’s what we get
from technology all the time. That’s why people leave villages
and go into cities — because they are always gravitating
towards increased choices and possibilities. And we are aware of the price; we pay a price for that,
but we’re aware of it, and generally, we will pay the price
for increased freedoms, choices and opportunities. Even technology wants clean water. Is technology diametrically
opposed to nature? Because technology
is an extension of life, it’s in parallel and aligned
with the same things that life wants. So that I think technology loves biology, if we allow it to. Great movement
starting billions of years ago is moving through us
and it continues to go, and our choice, so to speak,
in technology, is really to align ourselves
with this force much greater than ourselves. So, technology is more
than just the stuff in your pocket; it’s more than just gadgets, it’s more than just things
that people invent. It’s actually part of a very long
story — a great story — that began billions of years ago. It’s moving through us,
this self-organization, and we’re extending and accelerating it, and we can be part of it by aligning
the technology that we make with it. And I really appreciate
your attention today. Thank you. (Applause)

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Post navigation

100 thoughts on “Kevin Kelly tells technology’s epic story

  1. wow. who let this guy ramble on like this? Technology loves biology, if we let it? There are way too many wierd references to technology as some kind of entity.
    And the universe did not progress towards us! This shit just happened!
    Trends in evolutionary life? Even if those are the case that just happens to be the case! It's not on fuckin' purpose. Technology has its own agenda? Tools don't have urges!

  2. @lightsculler its not one book…I guess you didnt really bother to check it out. Be ware the guy who doesnt take time to investigate. Its an article supported with multiple journals.

    2.) the point is that coal is NOT as abundant as needed, nor can it solely be relied upon so your solution doesnt hold much water.

  3. population is a joke, we have more than enough resources to support the amount of people in the world, the only reason you hear about things like world hunger and mass food shortages in 3rd world countries around the world, is that theres always someone taking the supplies from everyone. The United states actually pays farmers to NOT grow food, and we TRY to feed people, but there is almost always some political problem.

  4. i am absolutely not saying that we are not effecting the earth, i completely agree that what america is using compared to others is ridiculous now what i am trying to say, is that if we are sitting around concerned about population growth, then we are wasting our time. Humanity can support it self almost limitlessly. I am honestly wondering where on earth you got the idea that i have "no concept of ecological footprint or resource chains" I was simply trying to produce a counter argument

  5. im saying that there is no limit to human intuition and thats the only real resource we need. in the 1800's people didn't think we would get through the 1900's but then we adapted and here we are, i would not be surprised and you should not be either, that when we do infact run out of critical resources on earth, that human intuition would find some sort of substitute and/or find new resources on other planets and/or find ways to more efficiently use our current resources.

  6. im sorry if i portrayed my ideas in any sort of "far fetched" or "wishful" manner. the honest truth of it all is we ARE rats, running about in our mediocre lives trying to grab as much as we can. In fact the ONLY difference from our behavior and the behavior of rats is our technology and our ability to expand technology

  7. technology as i stated before is the result of such , "communication, education, and predictive reasoning" and thats all im going to say. in my opinion you are now simply nitpicking an argument that should have long since ended. and REALLY? the reproductive habits of rats is the FIRST thing you come up with?

  8. 1) I did check it out. Original response still applies as science does not judge accuracy by acclamation. In any case, I wasn't personally criticising you, just indicating I wasn't going to be drawn on the argument, because…

    2) I was HELPING you. I know the skeptics arguments very well, and your 'finite coal' argument is weak, hence they will pound on it successfully. Concentrate on stronger arguments, such as coal not being suitable AT ALL, regardless of it's availability.

  9. Brilliant talk. I especially liked the graphics at 8:03 and 8:25. They both could use some more discussion, though. The subtle interrelationships between energy, matter, entropy, extropy, technology and life deserve a more thorough treatment.

  10. @planetdarwin

    think of earth as an art gallery. some part of gallery is better and more interesting than other part.. so people tends to go to that place.. even thou they know the part is already full.. whose fault is that?

    there still plenty room on Earth for human.. it just people does not want to go there..

  11. the lightbulb is probably the worst example for "bad" and "better"

    regular lightbulbs are A LOT more friendly to our environment than energy-saving bulbs, they burn for a lot longer time, are 100% recyclable (energy-saving bulbs aren't!!!), they cost less in production and so on…

    energy-saving-bulbs are a step backwards in technology.

  12. I've already switched more energy-bulbs since the old ones got prohibited a couple month ago, than I switched regular bulbs all my life.

    Doesn't change that they contain toxic chemicals, that musn't be thrown to regular garbage. A clear disadvantage against the old bulbs, that were, except for the wire, 100% recyclable.

  13. I know what I am talking about, but you obviously didn't get it, why you incist on me not knowing what I am talking now.

    The first regular lightbulb ever ignited is still burning. the only reason why regular bulbs break is because they do not contain a vacuum. when a oxygen-molecule hits the wire, it burns through.
    if they were produced correctly, they would last a lot longer then others do, beeing more efficent, wherever light is used for a short time only. switching on and off kills new bulb

  14. He used some generalisations I found misplaced, like "The European Way of dealing with new technologies" and Technology giving freedom and choices and diversity… whatever happened to those old vegatables of long ago? They got replaced. By technology. And freedom in let say a minefield? I watched the whole video, but watching AKIRA gives the same insights 😉

  15. If you'll notice he wasn't supporting the use of DDT spraying over fields but its use in spraying homes and as an additive to mosquito nets. Yes it has downsides, there not as bad as the 2-3 million people that die of malaria every year.

    I'm really not simply having a youtube argument for the sake of argument. please look into the associated costs and see if there is any better alternative for dealing with this problem. DDT is far from a perfect solution but the cost of not using it is high.

  16. "I use the word want". It's called technological determinism. He's pretending like he came up with the idea.

    technology is just the coming together of science and art to help humans consume more effectively.

    He's confusing it all.

    In a computer chip, the energy density is higher but the overall entropic footprint of making that computer chip on the universe, is immense.

    Our technology only creates more entropy in the universe. It's not a life form, it's a disease.

  17. Teleological explanations, antroporphizing objects and processes, energy-matter-information… I can't believe how pseudo-everything this talk is.

  18. First the Bill Gates' talk, now this guy's advocating of "the good nuclear" …

    Looks like the NewKewLurr Industry is trying real hard to change the minds of the new opinion makers (as it were.)

  19. for instance… why new york is has more people than let say nebraska.? I believe nebraska has more potential than new york.

    I think your analogy is using square footage for human bodies.

    I get your point, but your analogy is not suitable to convey your message

  20. the correct phrasing would be "how come that i think that your statements are wrong"

    And that can be explained very easily. You didn't get that information from any source you trust before, that's why you don't believe it.

    Can't blame you. I wouldn't believe any stranger in a youtube-comment without proof. But look and the facts and you see that I'm right.

    there are so many things people did not consider when judging what bulb is better. warm light makes you feel warmer, saving heatingcosts

  21. @Fensterplaetzchen
    Because Michio Kaku is one of the founders of string theory. He is also one of the few scientists who can clearly explain extremely complex issues in a way in which others can understand. His lectures are awesome to behold and I have only seen him on videos. I really like his Type I,II,III civilizations.

  22. In 1962 published a book "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson, who was the starting point for the "environmental movement" as we know it today. In the book, the writer expressed great concern over the human (industrial) processing of wild and including the use of pesticides (DDT), which kills by nature.

  23. Because of these substances we see today alligators, which are born with small genitals. And you find polar bears and fish that are born with both male and female genitalia. The chemicals are passed from mother to child through the womb and breast milk in mammals – and through the egg in reptiles, amphibians, fish and birds.

  24. Their eggs had shells so thin that they broke. The result was that the number of these birds fell dramatically. Today, DDT is banned in many countries across the world, but it is still used in developing countries in the fight against malariamyg!

    Many chemicals have been shown to disrupt human and animal hormones. Endocrine disrupting chemicals are largely used in industry, and from there spread to animals and humans.

  25. hes comment on DDT is not correct. DDT is not good and should be banned everywhere.

    Insect poison DDT is an example of how a chemical can affect animals. DDT was largely previously used to kill insects, for example. mosquitoes that spread malaria. And it was effective.
    But in the 1960s it was discovered that DDT poisoned the birds – eg. peregrine falcon, brown pelican and Bald Eagle.

  26. There are children who we can see developing bad tendencies because of the way they're being raised but there are no inherently bad children.

    He wasn't anthropomorphizing technology, he was talking about natural tendencies. Just like we might say that two magnets "want" to come together but we know that its not actually a conscious want. Technology is what some biologists would call humanity's extended phenotype just like the anthill is the ants' extended phenotype.

  27. Maybe he means the technology "wants" clean water because technology is dependent on humans and humans need clean water to survive. I'm sure he's well aware that at the moment technology is not being used to achieve what is in the best interest of humans and therefore not in the interest of the perpetuation of technology itself.

  28. I tend to think of endangered animal species in this way. If we cause them to die out, that's one more beautiful work of art that my descendants won't get to see. Imagine if the work of DaVinci or some important literary movement were lost forever. That's how I feel every time I read about some critically endangered endemic species that looks as if its going to be crushed under the careless foot of humanity and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

  29. I lost some respect for Kaku when he was asked about protocol in case scientists make contact with intelligent alien life and he seemed to support the position that the public shouldn't know about it. Otherwise he's a brilliant man.

  30. I led a civic group for young men for years and saw great parents struggling to raise BAD children, there are people who are bad, not that they were raised bad, they ARE bad, nature vs nurture, and sometimes nature throws in a rotten one.

  31. No one's born BAD! Never! They "bad" people are only made by events in life. Great people aren't necessary great parents. Being too good to or too passive while raising a child makes those "rotten" people you are refering to.

  32. Some people are born with a gift for music, a good teacher can guide that talent to greatness. Nature (talent), nurture (the teacher). Some people are born predators, or sociopaths, some people ARE born bad.

  33. I'd say everyone's born neutral. Like someone said before no one's born good nor bad. What is good and what is bad? It's up to us to interpret.

    Geniuses are made not born. Everything requiers work. At least that's what I think. o.o

  34. @bocbo

    Almost all of the studies I have ever seen on sociopathic and predatory behavior show clear evidence of common environmental factors in their childhood. As with any other kind of behavior, the tendency only reaches an extreme when combined with a complimentary upbringing.

  35. As with pretty much any physical or psychological characteristic, both nature and nurture play a role.

    So yes, you can be born with genes that will make you more likely to be violent, selfish, sadistic etc. I haven't found any twin studies on crime, (apparently the nazis had good ones… which reminds me why it's taboo to even consider the nature side of a nature vs nurture debate) but there's tons of studies linking genetics to agressiveness.

  36. Yes everything requires work. Even if you're really smart, you can't accomplish anything without at least trying.

    That said, a huge (~50% very roughly) part of IQ is genetic (and yes, it's an imperfect and biased measure of intelligence, but whatever measure of intelligence you choose, I'm willing to bet there's still going to be a huge genetic factor)

  37. This is the worst of the TED talks I have seen so far:
    A graph about global warming from before we recorded weather? Is it based on ice-core samples? Who took the samples? What technical training did they have? How are we sure that it was hammers that caused a rise in temperature and not solar activity… or inactivity?
    And on fossils, he really needs to read Jared Diamond's works before he starts throwing up graphs like the one at 3:09 and pretending he understands what it means.

  38. @CAlex6977 could you point them out for me, the logical errors i mean, i want to catch as many as possible.

    thanks in advance.

  39. I love technology, but this guy…
    The overly vague statements, the fallacies and all the other things that were bullcrap forced me to thumb this down (I'd have given it 1-2 stars, but since youtube's downgrade…)

    I'd just like to add, that humans could hunt animals without any tools at all, besides the human body. How? Running and tracking. It's called persistence hunting: watch?v=9wI-9RJi0Qo
    Humans are the best endurance runners on the planet.
    Were not fast or strong, but we are persistent.

  40. All who disagree the entire talk without pointing out any evident logical error, must believe in a certain god.

  41. @YYwb And a video that is so-so? A video that is bad, I'd have given 2 stars. 1 star, would be for those that are despicably bad. 4 for one that is good, and five for brilliant ones.
    Thumb up and thumb down, is very limiting.

  42. @YYwb All who demand that anyone who disagrees with something must ALWAYS point out ALL logical errors, EXPLICITLY, (and when limited to 500 characters, at that), should apply the same to him-/her-self or shut up.
    …and also realise that most people find their time more valuable, and that such behavior would be found annoying, anyway.

    …and any who seriously say that failing to do so, implies faith in a certain god, should get used to being taken as seriously as a claimed "alien abductee".

  43. @ZarlanTheGreen YouTube's data has shown that Thumb up and thumb down (much like 'like' and 'dislike') is a more effective system that people engage in. This is why YouTube got rid of the 5 star system because the hard data YouTube has been measuring shows that most people in a 5 star system would rate something only a 1 or a 5 star. People are inclined to polarization naturally. Most people stay clear of gray areas and choose black or white an efficient way to organize the world.

  44. @ZarlanTheGreen Of course there are some exceptions such as ratings for restaurants and movies. For somethings a star system works better than a thumbs up thumbs down system. In away I suppose YouTube's thumb system is a nod toward the old "At the Movies with Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert" which so famously made thumbs up/ thumbs down popular.

  45. @CAlex6977 Youve misunderstood the metaphor. Technology responds to selection and "exotropy" in basically the same way as biological life.

  46. I love videos like these. Shows graphically how the west really does consider technology its new religion lol. I love looking at the faces when the speaker generally asks them to imagine life without technology. Hilarious

  47. Okay for the dummies that don't get it, thoughts are a natural phenomena. All we can do is make a choices with the thoughts we get from an unknown source. Even the choices we make are based on more thoughts…so basically the whole thing is natural phenoma without a 'you' in it at all. Get rid of your egos and meditate silly people

  48. the first force is energy then the next force is mass?
    as a physicist or at least a graduate of a physics and philosophy course i immediately suspect a pseudo scientist who knows no physics – force is a well defined concept and the opening statement makes no sense – the following speech about energy density sounds totally wrong to me, anyone got any quantitative info to back those statements up? i doubt it

  49. Technology didn't exist until his birth.
    OMG 😵

    Hitler thought technology was at it peak in 1922.

    Which if horse drawn cannons were the tech before. And his tech was the next step than he wasn't much of a thinker either….OMG tech didn't exist until he was born…. again OMG 😵

    What about humans being biological robots?
    Animals designed humans.

    So robotics and AI is the tech of the animal kingdom.
    And humans being unthinking except for the downloading of thought via animals preprogramming it. (of course there is virus and disease which have thrown humans offtrack. And the fact animals did it without libraries or education systems) this humans are mere biological robots whose intent by the animals was to clean up the planet and find food and make food for animals.

  50. Everything humans have done or thought….Animals thought it millions of years before.
    Idiots try to prove them wrong by doing wrong. How stupid is that.

  51. Pushing the big bang is the same to me as religion pushing gods.
    The universe is a slow growth within space.
    Space which is purity, where there has been no thought or particularization.
    And was always light until the phosphorescen​ce began to gather together to form suns which created unphosphorescent areas from it concentrating on one place like grains spread equally on a surface and then something comes and gathers them in a pile (using the word phosphorescent just as a term not necessarily the meaning for glowing light but not concentrated which is what suns are)
    Because basically if nothing existed then there would be no blockage of light or concentration of it, thus all light. And concentration of light which would create a supposed darker area because of the concentration of it…….
    Hey don't blame me😇.
    He 👹 started it with his big banging theory like it's real or something.

  52. Wow. In short words, technology is good, technology is almighty, we just have to bear its consequences and see how we can change them. this guy is an example of everything wrong in the approach to the study of technology and its regulation. Instead of relying on his own prejudices and scientific metaphors to create his weird techno-mythology, he could have just taken some undergrad or postgrad courses about the subject. He could have had the answers to his anxieties –far away from his techno-fantasies, and avoid TED the label of sensasionalistic channel by the means of pseudoscientific thinking.

  53. Its ´really a great pleasure to follow the ideas of Kevin Kelly on the distinct role of technology in our lives and how it evolved! There is o much to learn in a simple and entertaining fashion…!
    Compare this, for instance, wit the thinking and writing of futurist and sc-fi author Stanislaw Lem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *