Largely influenced by Radovan Richta and his work presented in Civilization at the Crossroads, a compilation of discourses on human-technological relationships. Richta claims that we as humans have reached a stage in evolution, one alongside technology, which provides for contrast between man and the rest of nature (which for the most part remains unconscious of technology). Personally elaborating on his claims, I would say that man in fact came first rather than second in the techno-human relationship. There is a catch though, technology also came first (as conscious developed so was technology revealed). I find that actuality of technology is that it is a mode revealing of survival which is universally accessible rather than a contrivance of man.
However, I ask what has brought man away from what I call “the primitive” and into this mode of survival? I find semblance of understanding in Lewis Mumford’s (in his work The Myth of the Machine ) description of the development of man and his unique identity in nature:
There was nothing uniquely human in tool-making until was modified by linguistic symbols, aesthetic designs and socially transmitted knowledge.
This claim brings forth the idea that man’s mind is what seperates him from the primitive. Without man’s mind, we would find ourselves unconscious of the evolutionary branch that technology brings forth. It is man’s increased capacity that has allowed him to consciously recognize the concept of survival, and thus brought forth the discovery (NOT INVENTION) of technology. And I also find that technology is simply a logical mode, determined by evolution itself, through which the human species continues to ensure its survival, and it is not unique to our species but rather simply unachieved in magnitude by other conscious beings (However, I will note that several primate species have developed relatively advanced tools as a means of survival).
Simply: To consider technology anything other than a metaphysics governed by natural laws to be an absurdist notion at best. Considering technology as otherwise would force the ignorance of other tool-using species, and any recognition of these other species would eliminate the tangible separation of man and the primitive, a logical paradox which renders the argument: technology as the human determinate, false. However, instead of continuing to argue (I have a term paper for this), delving into the relation spirituality and creativity play in technology as a field of nature/reality, I will instead pose a question: Under what conditions could technology be considered not part of the natural world?