Talk:Technology

Template:WP1.0

NPOV

The neutrality of this article for many of the reasons explained below in the balance and balance redux sections. Primarily it is only the supposed benefits of technology to society that are allowed to remain in the text of this article. Over time much of the negative impacts upon society have been slowly or suddenly removed and never allowed to reappear. The editors of the page (and other users of Wikipedia) may need to question their own neutrality on the subject if they are involved in computer sciences or other fields of advanced technology.I'm not saying that all the supposed benefits be removed, or even that they all need to be questioned, but often there are two sides to the coin when a benefit is mentioned.

Defining technology as something that belongs to a "species" seems strange to me. I have never heard it aplied to anything but humans, except perhaps in Science Fiction. Why mention species or humans at all? Technology is the aplication of science through engineering, no matter who does it! --- It just sounds silly - and perhaps politically charged.

Balance

I have contributed and watched this article for a while now and am still of the opinion that it is overwhelmingly positive in it presentation of the technolgical effects and "advancements". As stated previously elsewhere, the images are mostly benign or put forward in a positive light while images of a-bomb explosions could just as easily be injected. "For example, the first image of the astronaut at the top of the page could very well be replaced by a mushroom cloud. E = mc2 is arguably the most important technological breakthrough of the 20th century and this technological theory led directly to the creation of the Atomic bomb". Images of assembly lines, tanks or Nazi gas chambers might also be included as notable uses of technoloy along with looms and printing presses. You'll also note that the environmental section (which inevitably led to some condemnation of technological society has now simply gone away. The nature of criticizing technology with technology may seem like a paradox but you can observe the way the system subtly leads a defense of itself and the dismissal and removal of criticism. This was a primary point of Jacques Ellul ~~

I've reverted it. The enviromental section was removed, as this article is undergoing a facelift. I'm not trying to remove criticism; I'm looking for balance in the article; look at the lead and see how each positive point is balanced by a negative point! I don't think putting images of A-bombs in the article is suitable; we've had pictures of weapons previously (see the 'Fields of technology'), and we're here to describe technology, not add shock images of Nazi gas chambers. CloudNine 11:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But you do not deny that E=mc2 is a landmard of technological progress or that this equation has caused great tragedy? It's not about shock, it's about reality and balance. The astronaut floating serenely in space seems overwhelmingly benign and arguably much less significant than Chernobyl, Nagasaki, or Treblinka. And all of these things were made possible by techno-industrial society. Part of the problem here with the positivism that sweeps this reality under the rug is illustrated well in a chpter of One-Dimensional Man by Herbert Marcuse.

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/64onedim/odm9.html I strongly urge you to spend a few minutes checking it out as it deals directly with the subject of balance concerning this topic. Many of the things written of positively, before saying some other things are bad, are often not nearly as healthy for society as they seem presented in the article. Again the chapter from Marcuse deals with this. Other negative characteristics of advanced technological society have also been deleted. For example... more people are starving and hungry now than at any point in history or pre-history -- in total numbers AND per-capita. Just today I saw a report from the BBC about 1 in 7 of the worlds [children] doing serious physical laborers (mostly in sub-Sahara Africa). The point that slaves (and worse forms of slavery) have been more prevalent in a world dominated by advanced technological societies seems noteworthy. So looms and printing presses don't cut it for me in terms of balance as far as images go. And it's honestly debatable whether these things are signs of improvement over other primitive, low-technological societies. I'll leave it at this for now but I do hope you check out that Marcuse. 70.226.140.69 02:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the negative consequences of technology seem to get covered up/deleted over time and relegated to the bottom of the page. No mention currently of luddites or major anti-technological treatises. And the good aspects of all the unnecessarily listed tools needs some balance. Sure six-shooter guns were an advancement that propelled industrial production -- but not only has that brought about environmental consequences, but it immediately facilitated the genocide of pre-american aboriginals. Sure nuclear power allows us to run all of our consumeristic gadgets more inexpensively, but Chernobyl and the connection to the Nuclear war industry also need to be mentioned. Balance is needed in this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nihilozero (talk • contribs).

A fair comment. I'm currently reworking the article, but take a look at the enviroment section: the image in question is a nuclear reactor, noting that it produces radioactive waste. There is a mention of weapons and military in the lead, but I will include a mention of neo-luddism in the lead's philisophical paragraph. CloudNine 14:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the attempt at balance. Concerning the image of the nuclear power plant in the Environment section, I tried to change the picture to an image of the Chernobyl disaster site and pointed out that in addition to creating nuclear waste, they (nuclear reactors) can potentially meltdown -- since this a primary concern in regard to the environment. I did this because the environmental concerns were incomplete without the mention of a meltdown and also because all of the images on the page seem rather benign or positive. For example, the first image of the astronaut at the top of the page could very well be replaced by a mushroom cloud. E = mc2 is arguably the most important technological breakthrough of the 20th century and this technological theory led directly to the creation of the Atomic bomb. So rather than going on about how humanity (or at least a very few) left the surface and went into orbit, the caption could read something like: "By the mid-20th century mankind had created the technology which potentially could bring about the end of humanity and civilization by scorching the surface of the earth with nuclear radiation." In any case, I at least hope my meltdown comment sticks this time under the image in the environment section. Nihilozero 11:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That would swing the article towards an anti-technology POV - something to avoid. I think the article (well, the parts of the article that I have rewritten) is NPOV. Take a look at the lead; it constrasts two different schools of thought of technology, notes "the development of weapons of ever-increasing destructive power" and "Examples include the rise of the notion of efficiency in terms of human productivity, a term originally applied only to machines, and the challenge of traditional norms." Just because something bad can happen with a certain technology, doesn't mean we need to mention it. CloudNine 12:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course we don't need to mention every bad thing that can happen with technology BUT, when we are talking about the greatest technological discovery of the 20th Century E=mc2 leading directly to Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Chernobyl, that should be at least as prominently featured in the article as the astronaut serenely exploring space as he floats in orbit. Technology has enabled humanity to wipe itself and potentially scorch every inch of the Earth's surface -- and that seems very notable to me. Nihilozero 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass-energy equivalence is a concept in physics, not a technology as such. CloudNine 15:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You are not seriously questioning whether or not the Theory of Special Relativity and it's application was a technological advancement, are you? You also don't question the incredible amount of damage the related tools have done and could do (to say nothing of the societal stresses they have caused). So these things don't deserve mention in this article because they have nothing to do with technology? Please. The bias could not be more clear. --Nihilozero 09:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Balance redux

RKO...RKO...RKO W00T I'm a little confused by the re-start of the above thread at its top, so I'm going to add my comments to it here.

"At the same time however more technologically advanced societies have made wider use of harsher forms of sexual slavery than any practiced by primitive societies (which are often subjugated or systematically slaughtered by advanced technological weapons and techniques). And while technology has produced an affluent class more people are currently starving on the earth than at any other point in history or prehistory -- both in total numbers and per capita."

One thing you shouldn't do is treat the subject of "technology" as being the same as "modern society". The two are difficult to separate, sure, but it's a mistake to automatically blame modern society's sins on technology. This is why some of these criticisms don't belong in the main technology article. They may belong in modernity or even postmodernity.

Separately, your claim that "more people are starving than at any point in history or prehistory" needs to be backed up by reliable sources, and I doubt the "prehistory" part of it is true: the Toba catastrophe is theorized to have killed off some ungodly fraction of the worldwide human population, through the scarcity produced by the ensuing volcanic winter.--Father Goose 17:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead in to my balancing statements was this already existing line: "Technology has affected society and its surroundings in a number of ways." To then mention only that advanced technology has allowed the rise of a leisure class, without mentioning the underlying reality of enslavement allowed by advanced systems of organization and control seems to detract from the balance in this article. Just the other day I saw a BBC news story about the fact that 1 in 7 of the world's children are doing hard physical labor. They then interviewed children in a sub-Saharan nation who were mining copper to achieve a subsistence standard of living. That copper is sent to China and then ends up in things like our computers. To speak of our leisure class enabled by advanced technological systems while ignoring their virtual enslavement belies any semblence of balance. I am not confusing technology with modern society because the subject line was about the effects of technology on society (which is controlled by advanced technological systems). As for the starvation "claim" (not that I want to distract from the points I've just made) Thant's pretty easy to understand as well. Primitive hunter-gatherer tribes, the Sioux or Australian Aboriginals for example, lived close to bountiful nature and were in no fear of starving. The famines in primitives societies occurred mostly when they started being pushed around by "advanced" and "civilized" peoples. And today we are in a situation were as many people are suffering from excess food as are from lack of it. This responds directly to the notion of technology only bringing about a leisure class and hopefully makes my starving point a little more clear as well. I therefore would appreciate it if you would restore the balance that I had added to this article. You can refer to the wiki starvation article for reliable sources.

--Nihilozero 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This story on the subject of child labor contradicts much of your stance. I didn't hand pick it: it was the first thing that came up when I looked for "one in seven" children "hard labour". I also looked at starvation, which contained exactly two sources, neither of which support your claims. I've taken the liberty of marking each of your above claims that I find unlikely to be true, unless you could provide reliable sources for them that were furthermore not contradicted by other reliable sources.--Father Goose 18:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I remember reading an article where a African tribal society had to put in a workweek similar to the Western world's just to get by. It's a fallacy to glorify the peasant's lifestyle (as it put it); people die earlier, usually of disease, and there's *lots* of fighting. I also thought of placing [citation needed] tags, as nihilzero's claims are rather incredible. At any rate, most of these criticms belong in globalisation. CloudNine 09:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And just which of my claims is incredible? You deny that technologcally advanced societies have an infrastructure and tools to allow the subjugation of more primitive peoples? You deny that the scale and brutality of the middle passage along with the enslavement of Africans wasn't facilitated and allowed to be of such great scale because of the technological infrastructure? Other simple genocides carried out by technologically advanced nations are also of historically unprecedented scale and brutality. I also directed you to the starvation page where you can see the dire situatin that exists for so many in the modern technological world. But you choose to only make not of those who have been helped by the infrastructure and not the masses who are suffering in the midst of so much technological wealth and control. That is the exact opposite of balance. Many seem to be techno-apologists and positvists who choose to only look at the perceived benefits while swqeeping a preponderence of evidence to the contrary under the rug. This is to such an extent that the consequences of E=mc2 (the A-bomb and Chernobyl) are edited out -- despite that equation being a major technological milestone. Again, I refer you to the chapter of One-Dimensional Man by Marcuse http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/64onedim/odm9.html and this book by Sahlins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original%20affluent%20society --Nihilozero 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the article you provided did not disporve my claims about the horrors of children in the workforce. There was put forward this hollow idea that it might be eradicated, but that doesn't change the present reality even if the UN was able to work this miracle. And the reason they are in the workforce is precisely because of the techno-industrial infrastructure. We are talking about the effects on society due to technology and since technology permeates and shapes the policies of the modern world to such a great degree, you can not say the children mining copper in Africa have nothing to do with our use of computers and hi-tech tools here in the wealthy nations. If you are going to mention the affluence broght about by technology you must, in the name of balance, include information about those masses who struggle to stay alive and feed their families in the modern technocratic world.

Did children only start doing work with the advent of industrial society? You're blaming affluence for the existence of hardship.--Father Goose 20:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the amount of work done by all persons, adult and children, has increased. This isn't as understandable or understood as much in wealthier western nations, much like the reality of starvation (and the numbers I've directed you all to) isn't as clearly understood. Much of the anthropological bashing of primitives societies was done by people trying to justify various genocides and this misinformation has persisted to this day -- while several reports from early European explorers (who described veritable primitive paradises) is in many instances still ignored. So yes, a smaller percentage of the population starved before the advanced technological societies spread their control over the globe. And yes, the type of work done in primitive societies was less dangerous/strenuous and the amount needed to maintain subsistence was less. You may disagree but then you are probably not sewing soccer balls for 18 hours a day or sifting through copper mines for pennies a day. And you're probably not hungry like a large percentage of the people in this modern world are. --Nihilozero 09:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed

May want to add a around

In other ways, technology makes life more complex. Sweatshops and harsher forms of slavery are more likely to be found in technologically advanced societies, relative to primitive societies. The increasing oppression of technologically advanced societies over those which are not. Creates new diseases and disorders such as obesity, laziness and a loss of personality.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.148.3 (talk • contribs).

I will try to get to some of the citations over the next week or so. SteveMc 03:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with the citations SteveMc. Personally I think this is easily recognized reality. First of all primitive societies did not have anything like the sweatshop assembly line or children mining copper (as I mentioned in the redux above) and secondly... African enslavement by the technologically advanced Americans, complete with the middle passage is of an unprecedented scale and brutality. The laziness and obesity and personality loss I don't know so much about, but harsh forms of enslavement of primitive peoples by advanced (technologically) civilizations is an obvious truth.

--Nihilozero 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Typos

In the defintion: (The world "technology" can also be used to refer) should be (The WORD...)

Corrected that. Thanks. CloudNine 15:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Kudos for adding the semi-protection. I suggest that the semi-protection be permanent for this page. There is too much work here to allow just anyone to change the page. This protection should have been placed on this page a long time ago. SteveMc 03:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. At the moment, I'm filing a request at WP:RFP every time the semi-protection runs out. CloudNine 08:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the semi-protection on this page is now permanent. CloudNine 11:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting the beginning

We should rewrite the beginning. Please leave your pro&con. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mateia on 12:58, 5 May 2007 (talk • contribs).

Why exactly? I think I've covered all aspects of technology with my rewritten lead, and it's now much better than the two line lead we had previously. CloudNine 08:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am with CloudNine on this one. The current version is a grand improvement over previous versions for many reasons. What are you proposing? SteveMc 02:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fields of technology

Not sure what happened to the {{Technology}} template that was on this page; seeing no discussion I added it back to the page. That made the Fields section, as yet empty, unneeded; so it is now deleted. I feel strongly that the {{Technology}} template is important to this page. SteveMc 03:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement. This article has been the victim of neglect, but efforts are under way to make it worthy of the Wiki.--Father Goose 03:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Question: what are the CLASSIFICATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY?

I find it strange that there is no mention of the field Management of Technology or indeed a WP entry for MoT. MetaAnalyst 11:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please add oc:Tecnologia

Please add the link to the Occitan wikipedia, as above. Thank you Joao Xavier

Done. CloudNine 09:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition?

Is the definition of technology really that elusive? An excellent definition that I was introduced to during my study as a Design & Technology teacher was "any product, process or system that solves a problem or meets a need".

Also, I strongly disagree that technology is a consequence of science and engineering, with the token acknowledgment that 'several technological advances predate the two concepts'. Technology not only predates, but completely enables science and engineering - neither would exist without the myriad of technological products, processes and systems that predate them. Engineering itself is arguably a only single facet of design & technology. --Sofaman 12:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sofaman, I totally agree. One of the reasons that I gave up many months ago on this article was that uninformed Wikipedia editors usually undid my edits to keep technological advances ahead of science and technology. We need to continue to make sure this article notes the accuracy of your observation!!! SteveMc (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

tirrique is a good form of technology!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.22.4 (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The above definition appears to be the best one. Technology as application emphasizes its essential nature. 74.195.25.78 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The definition outlined above seems very good to me. An alternative offering for consideration is; "The application of resources to solve a problem or satisfy a need". Just a thought . . . --Rossfi (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Unabomber as an Expert????

Is anyone else concerned about using Ted Kaczynski as an expert anti-technology reference? SteveMc (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it's a little weird. But honestly, look at it logically. Ted Kaczynski is a genius when it comes to technology. He knew what he was doing, and he didn't like technology when he bombed. So why not add him? MoneyBullet 19:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

His manifesto is often assigned in history and philosophy of technology courses today. He is taken seriously as a representative of anti-technological arguments in the present period. --Panoptik (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Immaterial Technologies

When people speak of technology, I think that semiconductors, blinking lights, cars, factory stacks, weapons and other such objects come to mind. I am interested in discussing and possibly writing a section in wikipedia about immaterial technologies. Even software has a material presence in the sense that it is a kind of symbolic written language that needs to be marked or recorded physically in order to exist.

What about psychological technologies passed on through oral traditions, like the Memory Palace? Or various acting or embodied rhetorical skills? I'm sure if we gave this some thought we could come up with a set of immaterial technologies that would illuminate our understanding of the term "technology". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwoj (talk • contribs) 08:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Pssst, you - Knowledge.

Simplest definition

"Technology is that is which simple, and yet works for complex reasons." Functional definition - many possible inputs, but only few outputs per combination of inputs. Relational definition - few inputs, but many possible combinations of outputs per input. Both definitions overlap; the personal computer is such a case. Another example: an iron smelting processing facility itself is functional - it takes coal and iron ore in, and puts iron out. However, that may couple with an automobile company's making automobiles, which take fuel in and can go almost anywhere - such would be altogether relational. That which is not at all simple is not technology. The "complex reasons" could be the inner workings of a technology, or the reasons for which the technology is used by humans. 74.195.25.78 (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Many biological systems would fit your definition, but are not technology. e.g. A heart pumps blood (simple), yet works for complex reasons. —Pengo 10:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. A criterion of being artificial appears necessary. 74.195.25.78 (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Interdependence

The tech sectors of the various economies suffer first in any recession. The reason is technology is most dependent upon both itself and other sectors. For example, semiconductor production depends having educated employees, which depends upon universities, which depends upon government funding, which depends upon taxes, which depends upon more fundamental industries like farming, transportation, and manufacturing. Hence, technological development of an economy requires a complex system of dependencies. 74.195.25.78 (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Metal Tools (Change Heading)

The section Technology#Metal_tools should either be re-named, or everything after the first paragraph should come under a new heading. The first paragraph has to do with smelting and alloys, and that is fine, but then it goes on to talk about wind travel and the invention of the wheel.
It seems to me that this portion should be under a new headline, maybe Early Energy and Travel, since the wind travel section is about conversion of wind energy, and the wheel section is largely about the use of the wheel in relation to energy (not just travel, but pottery).
The only reason these subsequent paragraphs should remain under their present headings would be if the author was trying to link the use of metal to harnessing wind power and the use of the wheel, but this is not evident.
Thoughts? Macduffman (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a sub-head, "Energy and Transport", and kept the first sub-head "Metal Tools." Seems to make more sense. Macduffman (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a long lead!

I'm not great with editing leads, but it looks to me like this one is crazy-long! I don't have any constructive criticism to offer at the moment (I haven't really awakened yet), but I thought I should mention this... Macduffman (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Trimmed the lead a little using an older version (the most recent one had quite a few redundancies), but in fairness, this is a huge topic. When I started rewriting this article a while back, I wanted to write a lead that covered every aspect of technology (which I hope I did). The rest of the article really needs expansion; I removed a rather stubby Society section, hoping to rewrite it some day. CloudNine (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I took the scope of the article into consideration, but apparently not well enough. I suppose it is rather large and your point of trying to hit every aspect is definitely WP-friendly. :) I took at look at another broad article, Human, and it seems to have a page-gobbling lead too, so what the hey. Thanks for your response! Macduffman (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hijacking/Misuse/Misunderstanding of the term to refer only to Computer Technology

I think the trend is quite clear lately. Though I don't know if an encyclopedia should include it. --Leladax (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is touched upon briefly: "The term is often used to imply a specific field of technology, or to refer to high technology, rather than technology as a whole."--Father Goose (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That's slightly different in my opinion though I understand it's almost the same. Different because Computer Technology isn't really "high" in many contexts compared to other types of technology that Popular Media refuse to call technology. e.g. A 'Popular Technology' magazine will call technology a common mobile phone, but rarely a state-of-the-art modern structural building methodology. --Leladax (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've added "...or to refer to high technology or just consumer electronics, rather than technology as a whole."--Father Goose (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible simplified definition

"Technology is the application of physical phenomena to a practical purposes" AllStarZ (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC) ` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.89.167 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture

No one has anything better? Seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.131.228 (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

More useful websites:

[[1]]-useful for finding disadvantages + advantages in technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetman96 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[[,m......

]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.154.13.5 (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"However, most technological progression is achieved through capitalism."?

under "optimism." Seriously wtf, bias, should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouswkiuser (talk • contribs) 04:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol, Uri GagarinAutonova (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Leisure class

What is a "leisure class" and why do we mention it in the introduction and nowhere else in the article? And surely we would need citations for such a claim whatever it might be? It is really the case that advanced technology or social theory is needed for there to be individuals who are pampered (an insect queen perhaps?) or apparently do less work than other members of the community?--ASA-IRULE (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional examples of Technology and its affect on today's world

I wanted to add some additional thoughts and examples of technology and its affect on our world, society, and culture. I found some really interesting information on the following web page. Check it out. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tandbtexas (talk • contribs) 19:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

is porn technology?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.179.22 (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

the u.s is ran by techno —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.52.51 (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I was almost certain this was going to be primitivist spam. Zazaban (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

---

hi to all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.87.95 (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

persian interwiki link

please add fa:فناوری to interwiki links. Achaemenes (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

History of the Concept of Technology

I would like to add a new paragraph on the history of the concept of technology, reflecting some important but not very well known scholarship. I am involved in this research, but I've reviewed Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, and I don't think that's a problem, as I am just summarizing published scholarship. I want to add the paragraph at the end of section 1, "Definition and Usage," because I don't want to add a new section. This is my first real contribution, but unfortunately the article is semi-protected, so I'll need to wait a few days to add it.

Here is the text:
Before the 20th century, the term technology was uncommon in English. In the 19th century, technology generally referred to the description or study of the useful arts. The term was often connected to technical education, as in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (chartered in 1861). Oldenziel and Leo Marx have described the rise of technology to prominence in the 20th century in connection with the second industrial revolution. In the process, the concept of technology became associated with the worlds of science, big business, and engineering, implicitly excluding workers, women, and non-Western peoples. Schatzberg has argued that the meanings technology changed in the early 20th century when American social scientists, beginning with Thorstein Veblen, translated ideas from the German concept of Technik into technology. German and other European languages make a distinction between Technik and Technologie that does not exist in English, as both terms are usually translated as technology. By the 1930s, technology referred not to the study of the industrial arts, but to the industrial arts themselves. In 1937, the American sociologist Read Bain wrote that "technology includes all tools, machines, utensils, weapons, instruments, housing, clothing, communicating and transporting devices and the skills by which we produce and use them." Bain's definition remains common among scholars today, especially social scientists.

Looks ok to me, but maybe it is a little long for such a long article. Here is more information that you could use that breaks it down a little and you could use it in conjunction with the Thorstein Veblen part, Veblen was an active member in the Technical Alliance. Unsurprisingly, widely used only after the early-twentieth-century rise of "technocracy," a movement that promoted an abstracted conception of technical superiority by seeking to replace the acknowledged subjectivity of politics by the assumed objectivity of engineg.

That is a quote more or less from that page. Read more: [3] - skip sievert (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Prehistorical?

seriously? why not |unsigned]] comment added by 24.19.148.46 (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of BC in dates/dating

Dates using BP (before present) are often used when discussing the paleolithic and even neolithic. Simply using x years ago is preferable to using "BC" and preferable to BCE (Before the Christian Era) which, while better than BC, would be overly culture-centric.

References

 Histotech (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)