Connections, a 10-part series written and presented by James Burke, was first broadcast in 1978. It presents an "alternative view of change", and examines the way in which one invention leads to another.
The main theme of the programme is the interconnectedness between all branches of human endeavour. It is when knowledge from different disciplines is connected that new uses for already-existing technologies produces what we might call invention. From these inventions, stem further inventions, eventually leading up to the technology we see around us.
Through viewing the history of invention as a web rather than a timeline, Burke disassembles the simplistic classroom notion that inventions follow a pattern of linear-development. The whole notion of 'categorising' technological development is questioned. For instance, though it may be possible to draw a 'historical line' from the development of the wheel to the modern automobile, the modern automobile may just as well be at the end of another line of development, for instance, the development of alloys, or machine tools. This might necessitate looking back through the history of combustion and gunpowder or alchemy... and so on.
The series uncovers the various impulses required for invention to take place. The first real invention, states Burke, is the ancient-Egyptian plough. Its invention was necessitated by the need to settle and plant seeds when the ancient nomadic-lifestyle could no longer be maintained. The production of grain necessitated the construction of pots for storage in granaries, which necessitated the development of a writing system so one could tell who's pot was who's. The development of a writing system allowed for a way of recording the patterns of the stars, which became necessary in being able to predict when the Nile would flood...
Though the example I gave above might seem a little deterministic (and beautifully familiar to anyone who has played any game of the Civilization series) it is clear that human creativity and intelligence, rather than just mother necessity, do indeed have a role in invention. For instance, in order for the practical benefits of astronomy to be realised, someone at some point (or many people at many points) will have had to have looked up at the stars on a regular basis and noticed the patterns, and been able to deduce how these fitted in with the world around them.
This ties in with another of Burke's main points: just because we can see the way in which the technology of the past developed, does not mean we can accurately predict how the technology of the future will develop. Yes, we can already ascertain certain technological issues likely to emerge in the near-future: the need for large quantities of clean, renewable energy (e.g. Fusion), the increased understanding of the workings of our own bodies and brains, the potential benefits to exploring our part of the universe. But there is no way of us knowing where the crucial connection will come.
For instance, a common tool of science-fiction is the idea of teleportation. But what does this involve? Our current assumptions of the relationship between the physical body and consciousness would imply that if you were to be destroyed in one part of the universe and recreated atom-for-atom in another part, you would be a 'new' person. But would your consciousness also be 'new'? What would happen to the old one? How do we have any way of knowing based on our current, limited understanding of identity and consciousness? Not only is the technology beyond us, but the philosophy behind it too is beyond our current level of understanding.
Take an historical example. People often laugh at the idea of geocentricism (the Earth being at the centre of the universe) and are surprised that only 400 years ago it was the orthodox opinion. But how many of us, given a telescope, a pad of paper and loads of spare time, would be able to prove that the sun is at the centre of the solar system? How many people still would be able to prove that even the sun was not the centre of the universe?
The answer is... very few. But the reason we find the idea of geocentricism so quaint is not because we have all done the calculations and discovered it for ourselves, but because we have grown up with the idea of geocentricism as part and parcel of a modern education. Thus it does not seem contrary to reason for us, as it is what we are used to.
One of Burke's other main points was that, although conceptually, the interdisciplinary nature of invention remains, the fact is that invention is now the realm of the specialist rather than the gentleman amateur, of the team of experts rather than the lone ponderer sitting on a hill. Would a man like Benjamin Franklin find any role in science today? There is a strange paradox at play. The further technology advances, the less we understand it... but the more we rely upon it. Burke's first episode, which recalls the North-Eastern blackout of 1965 (United States) is a vivid illustration of this.
Let us take ourselves to the present day; you reading this blog. Do you have any idea of the processes involved in getting my thoughts from my keyboard to your eyes? You may know the basic gist of it. Keyboard buttons trigger electronic signals in computer - these signals stored in the memory - the memory represented by 0's and 1's - this data can be sent over the Internet...
But do you know how the electronic signals work? Would you know how to build one from scratch? Do you know someone who can?
Perhaps the best thing about the series is Burke himself. He is fluent and has personality, something lacking in many modern documentaries. Burke tells a good story, and is good at making the viewer feel slightly ashamed of themselves without directly preaching. He delivers with clarity and honesty, and though he seems to get quite excited at times, there is a certain scientific authority behind everything he says.
The main theme of the programme is the interconnectedness between all branches of human endeavour. It is when knowledge from different disciplines is connected that new uses for already-existing technologies produces what we might call invention. From these inventions, stem further inventions, eventually leading up to the technology we see around us.
Through viewing the history of invention as a web rather than a timeline, Burke disassembles the simplistic classroom notion that inventions follow a pattern of linear-development. The whole notion of 'categorising' technological development is questioned. For instance, though it may be possible to draw a 'historical line' from the development of the wheel to the modern automobile, the modern automobile may just as well be at the end of another line of development, for instance, the development of alloys, or machine tools. This might necessitate looking back through the history of combustion and gunpowder or alchemy... and so on.
The series uncovers the various impulses required for invention to take place. The first real invention, states Burke, is the ancient-Egyptian plough. Its invention was necessitated by the need to settle and plant seeds when the ancient nomadic-lifestyle could no longer be maintained. The production of grain necessitated the construction of pots for storage in granaries, which necessitated the development of a writing system so one could tell who's pot was who's. The development of a writing system allowed for a way of recording the patterns of the stars, which became necessary in being able to predict when the Nile would flood...
Though the example I gave above might seem a little deterministic (and beautifully familiar to anyone who has played any game of the Civilization series) it is clear that human creativity and intelligence, rather than just mother necessity, do indeed have a role in invention. For instance, in order for the practical benefits of astronomy to be realised, someone at some point (or many people at many points) will have had to have looked up at the stars on a regular basis and noticed the patterns, and been able to deduce how these fitted in with the world around them.
This ties in with another of Burke's main points: just because we can see the way in which the technology of the past developed, does not mean we can accurately predict how the technology of the future will develop. Yes, we can already ascertain certain technological issues likely to emerge in the near-future: the need for large quantities of clean, renewable energy (e.g. Fusion), the increased understanding of the workings of our own bodies and brains, the potential benefits to exploring our part of the universe. But there is no way of us knowing where the crucial connection will come.
For instance, a common tool of science-fiction is the idea of teleportation. But what does this involve? Our current assumptions of the relationship between the physical body and consciousness would imply that if you were to be destroyed in one part of the universe and recreated atom-for-atom in another part, you would be a 'new' person. But would your consciousness also be 'new'? What would happen to the old one? How do we have any way of knowing based on our current, limited understanding of identity and consciousness? Not only is the technology beyond us, but the philosophy behind it too is beyond our current level of understanding.
Take an historical example. People often laugh at the idea of geocentricism (the Earth being at the centre of the universe) and are surprised that only 400 years ago it was the orthodox opinion. But how many of us, given a telescope, a pad of paper and loads of spare time, would be able to prove that the sun is at the centre of the solar system? How many people still would be able to prove that even the sun was not the centre of the universe?
The answer is... very few. But the reason we find the idea of geocentricism so quaint is not because we have all done the calculations and discovered it for ourselves, but because we have grown up with the idea of geocentricism as part and parcel of a modern education. Thus it does not seem contrary to reason for us, as it is what we are used to.
One of Burke's other main points was that, although conceptually, the interdisciplinary nature of invention remains, the fact is that invention is now the realm of the specialist rather than the gentleman amateur, of the team of experts rather than the lone ponderer sitting on a hill. Would a man like Benjamin Franklin find any role in science today? There is a strange paradox at play. The further technology advances, the less we understand it... but the more we rely upon it. Burke's first episode, which recalls the North-Eastern blackout of 1965 (United States) is a vivid illustration of this.
Let us take ourselves to the present day; you reading this blog. Do you have any idea of the processes involved in getting my thoughts from my keyboard to your eyes? You may know the basic gist of it. Keyboard buttons trigger electronic signals in computer - these signals stored in the memory - the memory represented by 0's and 1's - this data can be sent over the Internet...
But do you know how the electronic signals work? Would you know how to build one from scratch? Do you know someone who can?
Perhaps the best thing about the series is Burke himself. He is fluent and has personality, something lacking in many modern documentaries. Burke tells a good story, and is good at making the viewer feel slightly ashamed of themselves without directly preaching. He delivers with clarity and honesty, and though he seems to get quite excited at times, there is a certain scientific authority behind everything he says.
