The effects of nature and sociality as sources of technology, as well as the synthesis of engineering and technology in modernity

Rozin Vadim Markovich Doctor of Philosophy Chief Scientific Associate, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences  109240, Russia, Moskovskaya oblast', g. Moscow, ul. Goncharnaya, 12 str.1, kab. 310 rozinvm@gmail.com Other publications by this author

The idea of the first nature is the ultimate ontological basis for both natural science and modern engineering. This understanding, as you know, but in the form of a plan, was formulated by F.Bacon.  "The power of man over things," he writes, "lies in the arts and sciences alone. For they do not rule over nature if they do not obey it... What is most useful in Action is most true in Knowledge <...> Let the human race only seize its right to nature, which has assigned it divine grace, and let it be given power... The point and purpose of human power is to generate and communicate to a given body a new nature or new natures. The point and purpose of human knowledge is to discover the form of a given nature, or the true difference, or the producing nature, or the source of origin" ^{[3, pp. 192-193, 197, 200]}.

Based on this idea, as well as the works of G. Galileo and H.Huygens formed the technique of the XVIII-XIX centuries, called engineering. Describing the essence of engineering, philosophers, as a rule, pointed, on the one hand, to the action of nature, on the other ? the activity (art) of man. "Nature," writes our first philosopher of technology at the beginning of the twentieth century  Peter Engelmeyer, ? does not pursue any goals, in the human sense of the word. Nature is automatic. The phenomena of nature are interconnected in such a way that they follow each other only in one direction: water can flow only from top to bottom, potential differences can only equalize. Let, for example, the series A-B-C-D-E represent such a natural chain. The actual link A appears, and the others automatically follow it, because nature is factual. A person, on the contrary, is hypothetical, and this is his advantage. So, for example, he wanted the phenomenon of E to occur, but was unable to cause it by his muscular strength. But he knows such a chain A-B-C-D-E, in which he sees the phenomenon A, accessible to his muscular strength. then he causes phenomenon A, the chain comes into action, and phenomenon E occurs. This is the essence of technology" ^{[13, p. 85]}.

 As we can see, Bacon was simply talking about nature, not the first nature. The separation of the first and second nature dates back to the end of the XIX, the beginning of the XX century, when a number of philosophers and scientists were forced to admit that the principles of natural science, for example, about the laws of nature, mathematical description and the Galilean experiment, could not be extended to such phenomena as history, man, culture in part, society. The understanding of this fact was twofold: some researchers began to assert that there are two fundamentally different types of sciences ? about "nature and spirit" (later, natural and humanitarian), others that the listed phenomena ? this is in contrast to the "first nature" studied in the natural sciences, the "second nature" studied in the humanities and partly in the social sciences.

In Metaphysics, Aristotle contrasted the nature of (linguistic tracing paper, fuchsis) with techne (techne) which can be understood close to what we today call the activity of creating artifacts (if nature is characterized by Stagirite as a kind of self?movement, then techne is the goal and ability of the master). "From what arises," writes Aristotle, "one arises naturally, the other through art <...> "From various kinds of manufacture," writes Aristotle in Metaphysics, "we have the natural in those things in which it depends on nature <...> by nature in the first and main meaning is the essence of things that have the beginning of movement in themselves as such" ^{[1, p. 82, 123]}. "The name of the ability first of all denotes the beginning of a movement or change that is in another, or because it is different, as, for example, the art of construction is an ability that is not in what is being built" ^{[1, pp. 91-92]}.

I think that if Aristotle had been told our understanding of the second nature, he would have assumed that we are talking about technology. In modern times, nature, written in the language of mathematics, was opposed to activity in a broad sense, including a variety of connotations, for example, transformation, organization, management, development, reproduction, etc. Accordingly, techne, but in a narrower, not antique, understanding, namely as a technique, is brought under the concept of activity. For example, Nikolai Berdyaev in the famous article "Man and Machine (the problem of sociology and metaphysics of technology)" understands technology as an activity, organization, in fact, as a second nature. "," he writes, "means both industry and art. means to fabricate, to create with art…The main thing for our topic is the distinction between an organism and an organization. The organism is born from the natural cosmic life, and it gives birth itself. A sign of birth is a sign of an organism. The organization is not born at all and gives birth. It is created by human activity... The dominance of technology and machines is primarily a transition from organic life to organized life, from vegetation to constructiveness. From the point of view of organic life, technology means disembodication, a rupture in the organic bodies of history, a rupture of flesh and spirit. Technology reveals a new stage of reality, and this reality is the creation of man, the result of the breakthrough of the spirit into nature and the introduction of reason into spontaneous processes. Technology destroys old bodies and creates new bodies that are not at all like organic bodies, creates organized bodies... Technology replaces the organic-irrational with an organized-rational one. But it generates new irrational consequences in social life" ^{[2, pp. 8, 10, 11]}.

         Dmitry Efremenko's interesting article "Technology in the political Dimension: from megamachines to nanorobots et vice versa" introduces, in particular, the typology of megamachines, which are considered in two ways: both as a technique and as a second nature. "Mumford," writes Efremenko, "used the term megamachine to describe the phenomenon of the combined action of political, economic, military, managerial factors united by the personality and will of the supreme ruler. First created in ancient Egypt, and then in other ancient Eastern societies, the megamachine was "an invisible structure consisting of living, but passive human parts, each of which was assigned a special duty, role and task so that the entire bulk of the collective organization would produce a huge amount of work and implement great ideas" (Mumford, 2001, p. 250). The megamachine of antiquity (in a modern way it can be called the megamachine 1.0.) served as a model for all later forms of mechanical organization. In this grandiose sociotechnical system, primitive technology mainly provided communication and enhanced the effectiveness of the living force and at the same time, in accordance with the will of the sacred personality of the pharaoh or another supreme ruler, imposed strict restrictions on the "human components" ^{[5, p. 47]}.

   Considering these statements (from Aristotle to Berdyaev and Efremenko), shouldn't we distinguish between two fundamentally different understandings of technology and the line of its development: one, where technology is understood as engineering and conceptualized within the framework of the first nature, and the other, technology as technology, conceptualized within the framework of the idea of the second nature? Perhaps it is this second understanding that Martin Heidegger had in mind when interpreting the technique in his famous article as "delivery" [p. 54]. After all, it was not about the fact that technology is based on the effects of the first nature, but about the fact that one technique generates another, and technology gains power over the biosphere and man. By the way, Berdyaev also wrote about the power of technology: "technology wants to master the spirit and rationalize it, turn it into an automaton, enslave it. And this is the titanic struggle of man and the nature he is technizing. At first, man depended on nature, and this dependence was plant-animal. But here begins a new dependence of man on nature, on a new nature, a technical-machine dependence. This is the whole torment of the problem" ^{[2, p.12]}.

And Boris Kudrin writes in the theory of "technetics" that one technique generates another and this pattern can be explained within the framework of the first nature and even mathematically described in the formula of H-distribution. He believes that "the technical begets the technical. This is a fundamental fact of our time... the technosphere is increasingly absorbing not only the biosphere, but also the anthroposphere. Heidegger's thesis about the transformation of nature and man into a “post”, into a functional element of technology is not only confirmed, it has become commonplace... having formulated the laws of technocenosis, we get into the hands of a scientific tool for forecasting and calculating technology. Technetics will allow us to manage the technical element, unless, of course, managers will listen to us" ^[6].

Before proceeding to a brief description of these two lines of development of technology, I will formulate the essential characteristics of the technique, which I will rely on in this description. Technique is an artifact involving, on the one hand, the detection of effects of the first or second nature, on the other technical skill (art, activity), on the third hand, awareness (conceptualization) of both ^[7]. Here, for example, is the myth of Icarus. The Greeks thought that flight was caused by the movement of wings (this is both the reason for flight and the effect, but it was hardly clear in antiquity), and in order to make wings, wax, feathers and the art of the master are needed. Leonardo da Vinci draws a "macholet" in his notebooks, the production of which would require much more complex technical activities; at the same time, he no longer doubts that flight is based on the action of the forces of nature. But in reality, the first aircraft (airplane) was created when the lifting force of the wing, as well as the action of the motor and propeller were studied in natural science and tested in engineering. In this case, the effects of the first nature were deliberately used, and conceptualization and technical art were based on the ideas of engineering.

The effects of the second nature are caused not only and not so much by the use of tools, mechanisms and machines (i.e., the use of the effects of the first nature), but by the organization of the activities of many individuals and the creation of conditions for a holistic social action. At the same time, tools, mechanisms and machines are used as means, which also forms a contribution to the effect of the second nature. For example, the campaigns of Alexander the Great. Their organization required: the creation of an army consisting of Macedonians and mercenaries, the search for funds to pay for them, the adjustment of the consciousness of the participants of the campaign for trials and victory, the technical support of the army, the training and inspiration of soldiers, skillful management and many other actions that generally created the conditions for victory over the Persians (see more ^{[8, pp. 61-68]}).

"It is impossible to explain Alexander's campaigns, in which thousands of people participated and died, for monetary reasons alone. But we know that Alexander backs up the money with weighty ideological considerations. He borrows from his father an important message (“social message”, “social project”), namely, that the Greeks should take revenge on the Persians for previous grievances, as well as dramatically increase their well-being at the expense of their wealth...the social message with which Alexander initiated and inspired the Greeks contained two important components. The first one is connected with a real challenge – the need to overcome internecine strife. The second is rather ideological (ideological), namely the promise of a better life and power over the Persians. And not only that: the tsar's message was perceived by Alexander's army as the voice of heaven itself, as coming from the highest principle…

Peter Green's work allows us to specify the main conditions for the implementation of the message-the project of the conquest of Persia. Firstly, it is a large, well-trained professional army, which Philip began to create. One famous Macedonian phalanx is worth something. “Her warriors were armed with terrible sarissas, spears 13-14 feet long... Since they were about twice as long as ordinary infantry spears, the Macedonians always had the opportunity to strike the first blow when they came into contact with the enemy. The soldiers of the phalanx underwent the same serious military training as later Roman legionaries.” In fact, Alexander's army in terms of training and management was at that time the best in the Ancient World. The spirit of the Greek warriors cannot be discounted either: judging by the fact that the soldiers of Alexander the Great did not lose a single battle, this spirit clearly exceeded the mood of the eastern enemy.       Secondly, the Macedonian army was very well equipped technically for that time. “In addition to the field forces, many specialists took part in the invasion of Persia, including engineers, mechanics and topographers.” Thirdly, the Greek army was led by strong generals, led by Alexander and a very experienced Parmenion. Fourth, Alexander and his generals were superior to their opponents in terms of thinking. And it's not about simple tricks and techniques (many of them were also known to the Persians), namely, the implementation of a rational approach that included analyzing the situation, developing a battle plan, taking into account the psychology of the enemy, identifying weaknesses in defense, concentrating superior forces at these points, deceptive moves, and so on. Fifthly, Alexander constantly supported the spirit of the army, both by his example (in many battles he not only led the battle, but also took a direct part in it as a leading attacking cavalryman) and by constant care of the fighters. For example, after the capture of Halicarnassus, “the tsar sent all the newly married soldiers home for a winter vacation, which further increased his popularity.” In general, the points indicated here formed what, from a modern point of view, can be called a social technology created to implement the Greek social message" ^{[8, pp. 61-62, 64-66]}.

    If we generalize, it turns out that the effects of the second nature are a consequence not just of collective activity, but of a more complex education, which I would attribute to sociality ^[8]. The constitution of a new sociality creates the effects of the second-line technique. 

The first line of technology development. In the first two cultures (archaic and ancient kingdoms), technology was understood sacrally as a kind of magic, and the effects of the first nature, and partly technical skill, were interpreted as actions (help or resistance) of spirits or gods. Naturally, therefore, all technical actions were accompanied by sacrifices, and the main way of technology development was based on trial and error ^{[9, pp. 59-71]}.

 Since ancient culture, technology has been conceptualized rationally, first as imitation of ideas (Plato), then as following the nature of things (Aristotle). The transformation of ideas about nature in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (it is not only self-movement, but also written in the language of mathematics, intended for man, has laws that can be revealed by a person capable of creating second natures like God) allowed in Modern times to formulate a project for creating technology based on the study of natural processes. Now technical creativity was preceded by the study of processes of the first nature, and the method of trial and error recedes into the background. Engineering activity, which uses the knowledge gained in the natural sciences, is put forward at the first. But that's not all.

F. Bacon, formulating a new cultural project (mastery of nature) instead of the medieval one, assigns an important role to new technology (in fact, engineering, understood as practical applications of scientific knowledge): human welfare and industry should be based on it. "Finally," he writes in The Great Restoration of Sciences, "we want to warn everyone in general to remember the true goals of science and strive for it not for entertainment or competition, not for the sake of looking arrogantly at others, not for the sake of benefits, not for the sake of fame or power or similar lower goals, but for the benefit of life and practice ..." ^{[4, p. 71]}. In the New Organon, Bacon argues that "correctly found axioms lead to whole groups of practical applications" and the true goal of science "cannot be other than endowing human life with new discoveries and benefits" ^{[3, pp. 95, 147]}. And in "New Atlantis" he sketches a project of a new social organization (sociality) designed to support and ensure the creation of natural sciences and engineering ^{[10, pp. 156-168]}.

Thus, the effect of modern technology is now due to three important areas ? natural science, engineering and the sociality of modernity, which leads to a real "explosion of technical creativity". The successes of natural sciences opened for engineers more and more new processes of nature, on the basis of which it was possible to create new tools, mechanisms and machines, as well as a new environment, and engineers received serious support first from kings, and then from the state, who perceived the Bacon project as a direct guide to action.

One of the consequences of this explosion and the development of technology as an institution of modernity is the awareness of technology as a new reality based on the study of the first nature and its development by a person using social institutions (science, engineering, education, the state). Berdyaev even writes about the comogonic significance of technology and the upcoming new destiny of man: "We are facing a basic paradox: culture is impossible without technology, the very emergence of culture is connected with it, and the final victory of technology in culture, entry into the technical era leads culture to destruction... Man managed to bring to life, to realize a new reality. This is an indicator of the terrible power of man. This indicates his creative and royal vocation in the world. But also an indicator of his weakness, his propensity to slavery" ^{[2, p.15]}.   

 Another consequence is the formation of the technosphere (technology as a supply, as a global artificially created system comparable in scale of impact with geological processes), gradually changing the basic parameters of the biosphere.

Although, as we can see, the second nature was involved in the first line of technology development, its impact is carried out within the framework of the reality of the first nature and its derived fields of activity. On the borders of this line of technology development, engineering projects are being developed (for example, an atomic project), the implementation of which required the synthesis of engineering and technology, the convergence of ideas of the first and second nature.

The second line of technology development.  To characterize it, you can use the above article by Efremenko. The creation of megamachines 1.0., for example, the armies of ancient Egypt and Alexander the Great, can be considered the first stage of the second line of technology development. At the second stage, which partly resembles the formation of engineering, megamachines 2.0 appear. "A distinctive feature of megamachine 2.0," writes Efremenko, "can be seen in the fact that, although the organizing force for it is still the human will motivated by ideology or considerations of military?political competition, the main components of this sociotechnical system are scientific knowledge, advanced technology and a developed industrial base, while the "human component" is designed to ensure its well-coordinated and effective functioning" ^{[5, pp. 48-49]}.  

At the second stage, starting from the second half of the XVIII century, technology and its awareness are formed. They often talk about technology almost from the Neolithic, when man began to make the first tools. In my opinion, this is not entirely true, this activity is a technology only in retrospect. Technology, as studies of its formation show, is not just a sequence of operations of technical art, but a more complex sociotechnical education.

The first initiators of the discourse of technology (Johann Beckman, Charles Babbage, Frederick Taylor) focused their attention not so much on production operations, although they had in mind their optimization and improvement, as on scientific organization and division of labor, economy, quality, effective management and even restructuring of production activities, which was necessary in conditions of fierce competition. "Taylor carried out a real revolution in the field of production improvement, and that's what it was. He translated the natural process of production formation in culture into an artificial process. To do this, he proposed to investigate production activities (based on the material of physical labor), optimize it on the schemes created on the basis of research, then use these schemes to organize new activities ... how are all these points grasped and conceptualized in scientific knowledge?.. a new reality is being introduced (opened), namely technology, which describes industrial activity in the language of operations, their conditions, division of labor, management. At the same time, technology is beginning to be characterized by installations for quality, economy, standardization, rational description of production processes, their optimization and restructuring, for the training of new technologists" ^{[9, pp. 117-120]}.

         Efremenko also outlines the third stage of technology development in the second line: "And yet megamachine 2.0 is a guest from the past, more or less at ease in our present full of tension and conflicts. Does it follow from this that in the era of miniaturization, the almost instantaneous speed of information transmission and the displacement of hierarchical structures by networks, the very idea of a mega-machine is strategically doomed? Do not rush to conclusions. The question of the possibility of a megamachine 3.0 based on the principles listed above deserves serious discussion. In the ultimate version, such a mega-machine will be characterized by the fact that the will that organizes and guides it will cease to be a human will" ^{[5, pp. 50-51]}.

In megamachine 3.0., we are again approaching the limit:  here, the development of technology occurs not just due to the effects of the second nature, but also the synthesis of both natures, which is probably why "the organizing and guiding will will cease to be a human will."

Synthesis of the first and second nature. The nuclear project was perhaps the first where both lines of technology development joined. Indeed, on the one hand, this project is a typical version of engineering. It is based on the study of a number of processes of the first nature (the fission of uranium atoms and the determination of the conditions of this fission), on the basis of which an engineering design (an atomic reactor or a bomb) is created, allowing controlled nuclear fission processes to be launched.

But on the other hand, it turned out that in order to implement this engineering project, it was necessary to deploy a number of complex technologies (extraction of uranium ore, its enrichment, research of heavy-duty materials, purification of uranium from impurities, concentration of resources, political decision-making, etc.). For example, "the implementation of the Soviet atomic project involved not only research in the field of nuclear physics and chemistry, complex calculations, the invention of reactors and the atomic bomb, but also the creation of teams of developers, closed cities and the nuclear industry (for example, Chelyabinsk-40, Arzamas-16), the search and training of specialists (along with our scientists and engineers in the implementation of the atomic project involved about 300 major German specialists, taken out of defeated Germany), the decision to allocate huge funds, the organization of espionage activities (some historians claim that our intelligence officers provided at least half of the success), the creation of unprecedented secrecy, effective management of the entire process and much more ^[12].

In other words, an atomic project is both a complex engineering activity and the formation (constitution) of sociality as a necessary condition for this activity, and not first one thing and then another, but a complex interweaving, interpenetration, conditionality of tasks and processes in both types of nature. For example, in order to provide physicists and engineers with the necessary amount of uranium, it was necessary to create an industry for the extraction and processing of uranium ore, which in turn required economic decisions, the allocation of large funds, the search and training of specialists.  

The atomic project was the first swallow, followed by others. Currently, the implementation of most large sociotechnical projects (mobile communications, computers of the latest generations, new types of aircraft or cars and other complex equipment) involves the synthesis of engineering, technology and sociality. In terms of awareness, we are talking about the convergence of different approaches and activities, primarily social, technological and engineering. In the near future, Efremenko believes, "in the foreground should be those scientific areas that "grasp" the diverse and changing relationships between social and technical. Strengthening trends of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in social research of technology, modification of their expert function should meet the needs of not only political decision makers, but also a wide range of social actors" ^{[5, p. 60]}.

The view proposed here on the nature and development of modern technology allows us to talk about at least three consequences. The first concerns the fate of modernity in terms of that reality (the first nature), which should ensure the well-being and happiness of the New European man. Indeed, the successful development of natural sciences, engineering and technology has made it possible to create a modern industry that provides a high standard of living for millions and millions of people on the planet. But at the same time, scientific and technological progress turned out to be the culprit of global crises. He also gave birth to a new reality: technology, the sources of which are the first and second nature, and along with the first nature "technoprirodu" (its examples are transport and mobile communications, modern cities or the Internet). But when formulating his cultural project, Bacon had in mind precisely the first nature. As for the new reality, it is unclear whether it can perform the functions that were imputed to it in the Bacon project, or on the contrary, people unwittingly created a Trojan horse of a planetary scale that brings them death. In short, on the agenda is a rethinking and revision of the project of modernity and ideas about nature. One of the directions of this rethinking is the space flight projects lying at the junction of the first and second nature ^{[14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20]}.

 The second consequence is the need to explore and master the second nature (probably in a hybrid logic ? socio-engineering and cultural-humanitarian). Modern research suggests that the negative consequences of scientific and technological development are primarily related to the second nature. For example, I show that the last pandemic was caused by the extreme development of modern sociality, which equaled the scale of impact on the biosphere with planetary processes ^[11]. But there is another earlier example ? nuclear weapons and a possible atomic war: they are also derivatives of the sociality of modernity.     

The third consequence is also obvious: it is necessary to formulate a new understanding (new conceptualization) of technology, taking into account both the need to revise the cultural project and ideas about nature, and the requirement to minimize the negative consequences of scientific and technological development.