Technology and the Rise of Civilization

by Zomesh A. N. Maini & Brian Karlo W. Zuniga

To say that technology is the cornerstone of the contemporary age is nothing of an exaggeration. Every
means of production, communication, and interaction is so deeply tied to technology that living without it
would be a complete impossibility. The first stirrings of technology have a long history, and have created a
ladder for man to master his environment and be the most dominant species on earth. The development
of any social sphere is dependent on the technology it possesses and utilizes, and the beginnings of
technological use span millions of years. Here we examine specific examples coming from prehistory in the
hopes of understanding our co-evolution with technology- how it shaped our ancestors, and the parallel
themes that shape us today.

Science? Technology?

In our contemporary language, despite historical arguments of them being distinct entities, science and
technology are taken together so closely as to mark them inseparable. This persists as the most common
theme by which we culturally accept their identities – mutually independent, yet ironically, obligate dancers
dancing to the same music (Rip, 1992). Notwithstanding a multitude of analogies and explanations, a
consensus on their separate definitions has never been reached, and emphasis is always put in their
relationship with one another.

This relationship between science and technology in the modern context is one where science gives birth
to technology. The practice of science, when applied in the manufacture of tools and materials from nature,
yields technology. Technology conversely, creates machinery that augments our ability to do science,
increasing its scope and range. This point of view suggests that if there was some semblance of separation
between science and technology, it could be based on the realms they operate in (Garcia, 2011). Taking
science as a logical, empirical framework and method with the goal of making sense of natural phenomena
makes it exist within the domain of “theory.” Technology then, being knowledge applied in such a manner
as to create meaningful inventions, operates within the domain of “practice”. This is a very useful metaphor
in providing delineation between the two but at the same time incomplete one in terms of telling the rich
history and origins of both.

That technology is applied science is a recent thought. Reviewing history, it was only in the 19th century
where this strict, and separate meanings of science and technology as we know them today emerged. Prior
to this, science was the overarching term scientia that dealt with various endeavors concerning knowledge
that included formalized skills, even bordering philosophy (McClellan & Dorn, 2015). Technology at its
roots, originated from the Greek techné, the “making of good things”, connoting craftsmanship, skill, and
art (Hodgekin, 1990). These etymologies suggest a certain physicality in technology and intellectuality in
science prior to their merging. This is supported by the fact that science, at one point, was not always
universally available for all. It was a learned enterprise restricted to a chosen few that used a theoretical
language foreign to the mostly uneducated craftsmen of those times.

Today, we call individuals who practice science, scientists, and their work often finds meaning in publication
of information, processes, and protocols in academic journals, manuscripts and other media. Individuals
who work with technology are called engineers, and their work often revolves around the production,
maintenance and invention of machines, materials, systems, and structures. While this may seem to connote
staggering differences, the line between both is some situations is of a hair’s breadth. There are applied

Page 1 of 10
scientists who solve tangible procedural problems, and there are theoretical engineers who ask “why” a
problem needs to be solved in the first place (Reuben, 2017). Regardless of the choice in direction of work,
people who practice both science and technology have influenced how we view the modern world.
Scientists and engineers have been pivotal in creating comfort, and have developed the means by which we
have improved human civilization.

Science has provided means of understanding and distinguishing the history of civilizations. Characteristics
of civilizations in turn, have been used to explain differences in their view and conduct of science. A very
quick internet search of “modern science,” the kind of science we practice today, would yield the terms
“scientific revolution” and “scientific method” as common archetypes attached to its meaning. Evidently,
our current understanding of scientific processes is rooted in the core concepts of empirical research
involving observations, experiments, and measurements. Subsequently, it is this standardization of natural
understanding that has greatly accelerated scientific discoveries in various fields, from physics to geology
to medicine and even to numeric systems and quantitative knowledge. Indeed, the hallmark of modern
scientific practice is the ability to hold experiments with controlled variables and environments.

Nevertheless, what has been mentioned thus far is the development of a “standardized” scientific practice
that became prevalent during the scientific revolution guided by Western ideology. While a good number
of information has been “corrected” since (e.g. planetary arrangements, natural elements, medical
procedures, and bodily functions), at one point, there was knowledge and innovation that preceded modern
scientific thought and technological development – a primordial kind of knowledge from the age of human
antiquity.

Ancient Science or Ancient Technology?

Pre-historically, one could argue that there was science. However, formal science, the science that we know
of, was yet to happen. This contention becomes more valid when, upon a closer look at the fundamental
elements of scientific methods, we realize that science can be practiced outside of the rigid structures within
which it now mostly relies. These four fundamental elements are observation, explanation (i.e. hypothesis),
prediction, and experimentation (Godfrey-Smith, 2003).

The primitive world was full of natural phenomena, and our early ancestors experienced these and found
ways to exploit them for subsistence. Observations became realizations that became mankind’s first
“common sense” allowing them to make, what we could argue as, “intelligent guesses” about their world
(Weinberg, 2015). Thunder heralded the coming of rain, and to avoid being wet, our early ancestors sought
shelter. There was a certain predictability in natural phenomena, and our ancestors saw this, and used it to
their advantage. Indeed, according to an article by Danish physicist Niels Bohr, “…science is inseparable
from the collecting and ordering of experiences, gained in the struggle for existence, which enabled our
ancestors to raise mankind to its present position among the other living beings which inhabit our Earth.”
(1945, p.1). While our current understanding of the scientific method brings laboratory experiments and
published findings to mind, we can argue that iterations of observation, measurement, and verification were
present not only in humans, but in all organisms hinging on survival. It is because of such processes that
living organisms were able to respond to environmental changes such as temperature and the presence of
food and water – some of the basic premises of existence.

Conversely, many argue that early on, it was not science, but technology that built the beginnings of
prehistoric civilization and moved man from the age of antiquity. Homo habilis (literally meaning “handy
man”), emerged between an estimated 2.1 to 1.5 million years ago, along with some more primitive

Page 2 of 10
ancestors belonging to the Australopithecines, and both were already using a simple toolkit made of stones
(Tobias, 1965). The earliest modern humans were thought to have expanded these simple technologies and
produced a wide array of tools from various sources – sometimes to make more tools. This simple toolkit
becomes more complex and expansive as the hominids, our direct ancestors, also began to become
increasingly intelligent, and learned not to just adapt, but dramatically alter their environment. The use of
these tools has been hypothesized to be non-instinctive, and is passed on culturally from one member of
the species to other (McLellan & Dorne, 2015).

Another key innovation of this age is the controlled use of fire, the most primitive phenomenon-turned-
technology. The first consistent evidence of reliable fire-making technology was developed around 7000
BC, even if our early ancestors were using fire thousands of years prior to that (Knight & Schlager, 2002).
Fire was used for a variety of purposes: to keep warm, extending the lighted portion of a day, and it kept
animals at bay (Atwell et al., 2015). The moment fire was used by our predecessors to cook food, they would
have changed the course of our evolution. Cooking increases the nutritive value of food, and the excess
calories were believed to have been crucial in sustaining the development of a larger brain that demanded
more energy (Wrangham, 2009). This also kills microorganisms, reducing susceptibility to diseases, and
increases the range of dietary components for consumption, all while providing an avenue for social
interaction – the fireside (Choi, 2017).

There are a few points to take from these examples. First technological use prior to a formal understanding
of the principle involved in its application challenges the perspective that science is an antecedent to
technology. The ability to use fire as technology preceded the understanding of the principle of what fire is.
The breaking of this perspective is supported by several examples seen in various stages of human history.
The early Greeks such Archimedes used technological models in solving “scientific problems” (Hansson,
2015). Newton, and other individuals during the latter part of the Renaissance built on ideas of Descartes
and used the mechanical motion of clockwork to describe the universe as perfect, predictable machine
(Mazzocchi, 2008). Thermodynamics as a science was born in response to the need for improvement of
the steam engine (Garcia, 2011). Every conceivable turn in history has instances of technology influencing
the science of that age, and prehistory is no exception.

A second point would be that our evolutionary history overlaps and is directly influenced by technological
history. Without tools, we are a weak species, a product of “biological deficits” – lost traits that have been
replaced by technology (Taylor, 2010). This capability to utilize stone tools and fire, combined with good
technology transfer and a larger brain size primed Homo sapiens sapiens for a greater stage. This sowed the
seeds for the foundation of the earliest human civilizations. To help articulate this, we borrow ideas from
sociologist Gerhard Lenski (ecological evolutionary theory, 2005) and futurist Alvin Toffler (three
technological waves, 1980).

Ancient Practices: Foundations of Civilization

In understanding Lenski’s theory, it is important to note two ideas. First, societies “evolve” in response to
their environments, and second, the degree to which a society “evolves” is dependent on technological
development (Nolan & Lenski, 2006). Lenski considered nomadic hunting and gathering as the most
primitive subsistence strategy, as it required minimal tools and landscape alteration. Nomadic societies lived
off what is available in the land, and migrated to another area once resources were depleted. Such societies
are rare in recent times, owing to rapid urbanization, population growth, and globalization. While such
societies can only sustain small populations, they create the least environmental degradation. It is also within
the practices of these societies that humans were able to observe edible plant and animal material, better

Page 3 of 10
tools, and shelter structures. Such instances of “scientific practice” are seemingly rudimentary and could
even be fatal (e.g. a certain fruit may be deemed inedible if it killed the consumer); nevertheless, bodies of
knowledge regarding our understanding of nature were rooted from such practices.

Through such understanding, humans may have understood several crucial ideas: that population was
directly related to resources, that such populations are hard to sustain in mobility, the importance of hard
tools and instruments, which areas are seemingly abundant with resources, and which plants and animals
are beneficial for the society to grow. Such knowledge would have been crucial for a more sedentary
subsistence strategy--one that would create empires out of tribes. However, this change did not come
quickly. Despite sedentism being portrayed as a much better alternative for nomadic life, archaeological
evidence suggests a 4,000-year gap between the domestication of plants and animals and the rise of
“subsistence settlements” – the first agricultural centers (Kennet & Winterhalder, 2006) The key element
in this settling down took a while because nature was bountiful, and it is no surprise that the first civilizations
of the east and west were built on areas that had water, and offered a diverse array of food for the hunter-
gatherers of the Paleolithic.

The first ancient civilizations arose in Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, and along the Indus and (later) Ganges
rivers. That these were assembled near bodies of fresh water by chance; these were crucial resources for a
new subsistence strategy that powered these civilizations – agriculture. Alvin Toffler (1980) described the
“flow of civilization” as a movement in three steps, with the agricultural revolution being a foundational
episode that directed the disorganized nomadic tribes into the first states. Superimposed with Lenski, we
see agriculture as a more intensive form of pre-developed subsistence strategy focused on food production.
Food acquisition in this new method requires a more elaborate process compared to a nomadic lifestyle.
This new survival strategy entailed high costs.

Archaeological evidence points to the first thousand years of the agricultural revolution as a disappointment.
Societies that practiced agriculture showed higher mortalities and more signs of stress. Production was not
easy, involving changing the landscape in preparation for sowing crops, while the rearing animals close to
denser human populations could have prompted cross species infections, leading to sickness (Scott, 2017).
What then caused the final shift into agriculture? Several reasons ranging from climactic changes to a
restructuring of human groups and their need (Price & Gebauer, 1995). One intriguing hypothesis is heavily
biological the formation of “crop complexes” (Price, 2009). In agriculture, certain plants selected for their
edibility, sturdiness, and availability are planted as crops in large tracts of fertile land altered for such
purpose, and are grown together with domesticated animals. These plant and animal crop complexes are
imagined to be the result of elaborate experimentation in finding the proper assemblages that permit the
establishment of a steady food supply. This connotes an increase in manipulation and artificial selection of
wild plants and animals that could be cultivated and tamed to form a set of species that could constitute
the human diet. This was more trial and error than an actual science, and evidence suggests several attempts
before being able to find the proper crop complexes.

The development of the plow around this time, according to Toffler (1980) would cement the role of
modern man in the Neolithic. Plow-based agriculture would flourish all over the globe, influencing the rise
of later Greek, Indian, and Chinese civilizations. Plowing increased the amount of arable land, increasing
the ability to plant various cereals, the cornerstone of the agricultural strategy at this time (Lal, 2009). The
increase in surplus may have allowed these societies to begin to stay within the farmed land, rendering them
sedentary. The animal husbandry component of the crop complex focused on animals that can provide
meat and work power. After some time, the planted crops can be harvested, yielding food more than plant
material gathered in nomadic times. This steady, abundant supply of food increased the population within

Page 4 of 10
these sedentary societies, and this resulted in welcome additional manpower. Not all became farmers –
some would have to handle the animals, some specialized in providing more resources, better shelter, while
some would have to acquire better materials for weapons, such as metals like bronze and iron: a
diversification of job types.

Different societies would also produce different crop yields in surplus, which opened opportunities for
trade. A less cooperative arrangement would leave one group forcefully acquiring resources from other
peoples, leading to competition and strife. For the sake of protection, better tools to defend the land, its
citizens, and its resources, were created, further developing weapons and people specialized to use them,
leading to the development of military ideas and personnel. The person owning the land, having control of
this increasingly complex system, consequently acquired more and more power. These societal owners
became the first rulers of the emerging domains, the strongest of which eventually became kings and
emperors. This power structure also meant a semblance of social hierarchy, with the ruling class at the top,
with the expendable workforce of conquered peoples becoming the slaves at the bottom.

The formation of civilizations was nothing short of a bumpy ride. Scott (2017) tells us to refrain from
thinking that the “Neolithic package” was perfect in all respects, and hundreds of archaeological sites all
over the world show evidence of desertion within the 4,000 years of trials of sedentism. Places would be
settled in, abandoned, and then re used at some other time. There were many self-implosions before we
were able to perfect the way to create states, and our ancestors had to “rough it up” for several millenia.
The historic rise of the modern civilizations that we see now is largely a product of trial, error, and more
trial and error.

A Lesson from the Stone Age

Modern man has been around for roughly two hundred thousand years, an infinitely small value compared
to the 3.9 billion years that life has been abundant in the planet. Yet, in the last two centuries alone, we
have managed to change the earth beyond reckoning, and we have done so using tools, or making tools,
activities that we have adopted at every step of the ladder towards our global ascent.

One can argue that the dominance of our species was already pre-determined once we started using tools
to alter our landscape. That controlled arson would pave the way for agriculture might not appear as
significant stepping stone to our cosmopolitan supremacy, but it was. At least the idea of changing nature
and not just adapting to it was something revolutionary – our ancestors were no longer bound by the
constraints of their physicality. The effect of the use of fire is dramatically seen when scanning the fossil
record. Earliest archaeological strata of caves show humans being eaten by animals – bone fragments of
humans are dug along with skeletons of predators. Relatively exposed and defenseless, our ancestors were
easy prey. The moment they learned how to use fire, the same cave strata shows animal bones being
fragmented – hominins became the hunters and not the hunted (Scott 2017).

The necessity of using technology at that time was paramount, and this necessity was a powerful driver for
their use. Our ancestors relied heavily on the predictability of nature for survival – and did it to an extent
that is nothing short of amazing. They diversified their tools that were initially to stave off predators into
objects that allowed them to take careful observations of their surroundings. They plotted the movement
of the moon and stars and the migration of cattle. They used tools to sew materials together and protect
themselves from the elements. They even used tools to make more tools, further expanding their interaction
with their environment, ultimately inventing writing and record keeping, changing social relationships.
From this we can postulate that we are the result of an evolution no longer only influenced by the selective

Page 5 of 10
pressure of the environment, but technological pressure: the ability to come up and utilize new technology
(Munkittrick, 2014). What is “natural” for us in this sense has always been an evolution tied to the
technology that we make. Technological invention, use and transfer is so central to the human condition
that it has become more than a making and using of tools but rather a co-evolution between us and
technology, where each is a sphere that is superimposed on one another. Technology is no longer just a
transformation of nature, but a transformation of humanity done by humanity.

The transformative nature of technology is best seen today – we have managed to change the landscape of
the earth so much in the last three centuries alone. Technology held by us rapidly consumes resources to
provide a better quality of life for our species: at the cost of everything else, and to our own detriment. We
have always sheltered ourselves within a bubble of artificial means. Our rise to planetary stardom has
imposed a new standard of living on the natural world, and it may not hold for long. While the origins of
technology are biological in nature, the needs of industrialized society are radically different, putting us into
a unique position in history.

We may not need to fight off predators, but we have continued to build upon fire and stone to change our
planet in this Anthropocene. Winston Churchill, during the wartime efforts of 1937, recognized the dangers
of modern technology: “…we may not feel so proud and happy about all that science has done and is going
to do in the lifetime of most of those who will read this page. The achievements of science in the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries were not necessarily to the happiness, virtue, or glory of mankind.” (Lyons, 2010,
p.79). While the impact of technology on daily life is incontrovertible, the magnitude of human conflict
spurred by technology has enlarged to involve the whole world. The same tools for war and destruction are
the same tools for peace, much like the spears used to hunt wild animals before were used to protect
prehistoric assemblages from raids of other groups. By itself, technology is inert, and is always positioned
in a historical, social and cultural context, with civilizations choosing which technologies are best
appropriated for their needs (McClellan & Dorn, 2015). Thus, a reassessment of our needs is the best way
to influence our use of technology since it is always our perspectives that determines its use, for better or for
worse.

A New Perspective

Technology changes lifestyle, attitudes, and values. The first kinships that have originated at the fireside
after a thrilling hunt are replaced by those borne over the internet. Social interactions, absolutely necessary
before for survival, are reduced today to the ability to type into a device. In this age of information where
timeframes are fast and attention spans are small, it may be a good idea to look back at the techné of
technology: “to make good things” or rather, to make things for the good. It is in this sense of making things
for the good that we can re-envision the transformative value of technology. More than just enhancing the
comfort that we possess, we must see it as a calling: an opportunity to be craftsmen involved in the creative
endeavors that change nature. Further extending this theme, we could push farther and say we must use
technology for the common good – a good that is inclusive and veers away from our anthropocentric world
view.

For approximately ninety-five percent of the time we have existed as modern humans, we survived by
taking from a plentiful land. This sends a powerful message: that there is enough for everyone. This is the
common good that we need to work towards. Nature is bountiful, and can support all life, as long as we
respect its limits, much as our sylvan ancestors did. The true challenge of our age is not how to improve
the human condition, but to reassess our notion of progress. What does progress mean in the context of
this society that we find ourselves in? Perhaps, technology here is a force not just to reconstruct nature into

Page 6 of 10
a wellspring of benefit but also a means by which we extend the blessings of the intelligence of our species
for all.

Page 7 of 10
Guide Questions:
1. Science etymologically was an overarching term that encapsulated most of formal learning. How
was technology traditionally compared to it?
2. In what ways did the early human tools such as fire and the plow facilitate a shift from
subsistence-based societies to sedentism?
3. What became the focal point of technology development after the “Neolithic Revolution”?

Points for Reflection:

1. The modern perspective takes science and technology together. Do you think it is possible in this
modern era to benefit from technology without understanding the principle behind it? Explain
your answer.
2. The establishment of formal agricultural centers had a delay because of the difficulty of
establishing communities built on a set of “crop complexes”. What would could have been the
advantages of retaining a sedentary life?
3. How can technology as techné influence our perception and use of technology for a common good?

Page 8 of 10
References:

1. Attwell, L., Kovarovic, K., & Kendal, J. R. (2015). Fire in the Plio-Pleistocene: the functions of
hominin fire use, and the mechanistic, developmental and evolutionary consequences., 93, 1-20.

2. Bohr, N. (1945, August 11). Science and Civilization. The Times. Retrieved from
http://fys.dk/nielsbohr/Tekster/Science%20and%20Civilization.pdf

3. Choi, C. (2017). History Of Fire Milestone, One Million Years Old, Discovered In Homo
Erectus’ Wonderwerk Cave. Science, Huffington Post. Retrieved from:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/02/history-fire-million-homo-
erectus_n_1397810.html

4. Garcia, J.J. (2011). Technology, Society and National Development. In: Stellar Origins, Human
Ways: Readings in Science, Technology and Society. Ateneo de Manila University Press.

5. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and Reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science.

University of Chicago Press.

6. Hansson, S.O. (2015) Preview. In: The Role of Technology in Science: Philosophical
Perspectives. Springer.

7. Hodgkin, R. A. (1990). Techne, technology and inventiveness. Oxford Review of Education, 16(2),
207-217.
8. Kennett, D. J., & Winterhalder, B. (Eds.). (2006). Behavioral ecology and the transition to
agriculture (Vol. 1). Univ of California Press.

9. Knight, J., Schlager N. eds. (2002). Science, Technology and Society: the impact of Science from
2000 BC to the 18th Century. 3rd Edition. Thomson & Gale.

10. Lal, R. (2009). The plow and agricultural sustainability. Journal of sustainable agriculture, 33(1), 66-84.

11. Lenski, G. (2005). Ecological-Evolutionary Theory: Principles and Applications. Boulder, Colo:
Paradigm Publishers.

12. Lyons, J. D. (2010). Churchill on Science and Civilization. The New Atlantis, (28), 75-84. Retrived
from: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20100914_TNA28Lyons.pdf

13. Mazzocchi, F. (2008). Complexity in biology. EMBO reports, 9(1), 10-14.

14. McClellan III, J. E., & Dorn, H. (2015). Science and technology in world history: an introduction.
Johns Hopkins University Press.

15. Munkittrick, K. (2014). We Have Always Been Transhuman. Institute of Ethics and Emerging
Technologies. Retrieved from: https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/munkittrick20090610

16. Nolan, P. and G. Lenski. (2006). Human societies: An introduction to macrosociology. Boulder,
Colo: Paradigm Publishers.

17. Price, T. D. (2009). Ancient farming in eastern North America. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 106(16), 6427-6428.

18. Price, T. D., & Gebauer, A. B. (1995). Last hunters, first farmers: new perspectives on the
prehistoric transition to agriculture. Journal of Field Archaeology. 26(3): 353-358.

Page 9 of 10
19. Rip, A. (1992). Science and technology as dancing partners. Technological development and
science in the industrial age, 231-270.

20. Ruben, A. (2017). What the heck is an engineer anyway? Science. Available from:
http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2017/11/what-heck-engineer-anyway

21. Scott, J. C. (2017). Against the grain: a deep history of the earliest states. Yale University Press.

22. Taylor, T. (2010). The artificial ape: How technology changed the course of human evolution. St.
Martin's Press.

23. Tobias, P. V. (1965). Australopithecus, Homo habilis, tool-using and tool-making. The South African
Archaeological Bulletin, 20(80), 167-192.

24. Weinberg, S. (2015). To explain the world: The discovery of modern science. Penguin UK.

25. Wrangham, R. (2009). Catching fire: How cooking made us human. Basic Books.

Page 10 of 10