Talk:Technological evolution

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 27 March 2017 for a period of one week.

Technology definition

Whats the most appropriate definition for technology? -- 199.246.158.2

Merge with Radovan Richta or History of technology

This article is not a general article about technological evolution, but a report on one of Richta's publications, and the article History of technology already covers the topic this article's title suggests it should. This article should be merged into one of these two articles, and I'm leaning towards Radovan Richta but am open to other suggestions. -- Schaefer 15:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since this appears to be a theory attributed to Richta only, I merged this with his article. Unrelated external links moved to United Nations Development Programme and UN Economic and Social Council.-- Beland 18:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, why have you reverted the redirect to Radovan Richta? All of this page's content has been included there, and this article's present title doesn't reflect its content. In any case, please use the talk page before reverting changes discussed here. -- Schaefer 07:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd think that 'Technological evolution' would be a subject broader then what only Radovan Richta writes about. I might be mistaken, but I think it is an important subject, connected with such articles as technological singularity, sociocultural evolution, history of technology and technological progress, just to name a few. Bascially, simply redirecting it to RR may confuse some people looking for the above articles - perhaps a disambig would be better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A disambig is fine with me. I just don't want to have the article's present content (which only concerns Richta) in more places than it needs to be. -- Schaefer 01:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I coined the term “technological evolution” based on a brief lecture I heard on Richta, and then expanded on the original concept. I think he actually used the term “revolution,” but he didn’t write in English, and I thought “evolution” was a better description. (I don’t speak Czech, so I can’t say that he didn’t use the term, but the origin of that term on Wikipedia is mine.) The definition of “technology” is mine also (though consistent with Richta’s views), but when I tried to remove the quotes, I got reverted.

I created this article because I think the topic of “evolution” of technology is more abstract than “history.” “History” refers to the history of a particular civilization, whereas “evolution” (as Richta meant it) refers to the necessary steps that [i]any[i] civilization takes in the development of technology.

I am actually not aware of any other intellectuals (besides Kardashev and Kurzweil, and their focus was different) who have taken as broad a view of technology as Richta. I think he was the first philosopher to give it such a deep analysis. Futurists like Asimov have usually focused on concrete milestones rather than abstract divisions. --GreedyCapitalist 05:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with arguing that you have coined something: WP:NOR! Besides, this term is much more popular then you think: [1]. It may be a good idea to divide the article into sections explaing Richta's view, Kurzweil view, and others.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed reference to agriculture

Agriculture is probably the biggest single step in the evolution of civilization, but it's not applicable to Richta's theory. The theory deals with the fundamental type of technology, not particular technologies or tools. As such, all possible technologies can be classified within the three basic types. --GreedyCapitalist 17:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: it appears that Bloomfield's theory, with its focus on the evolution of agriculture, is more historical than social-philosophical, and should be in a separate section. --GreedyCapitalist 17:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patents in the information age

Did the original work also include this information about the patent system needing transformation or replacement with the internet? I have the impression that the end of the article appears to begin touching the subject. PaleoNeonate (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the article

Should the article only cover the early work, or should it become more general, covering the information age, and perhaps even, the development of other "stages" after automation? For instance, we can today begin to modify nature through genetic engineering, and develop impressive artificial intelligence, both of which are major steps forward after basic automation. We are also discovering our origins in unprecedented ways. Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]