Technology is not a Device, but a Stack
Extraordinary technology demands extraordinary infrastructure. To frame this as a simple device is, in itself, an extraordinary claim cloaked in the guise of simplicity
When we use sophisticated systems to observe an extraordinary technology in the sky, we must recognize that this is not merely a device; but rather a broad, structured domain, involving the work of tens of thousands of individuals—best understood as a stack.
Extraordinary technology demands extraordinary infrastructure. To frame this as a simple device is, in itself, an extraordinary claim cloaked in the guise of simplicity.
Technology is never merely a device or an isolated system. Instead, a component of technology represents the visible tip of an iceberg—an intricate culmination of cultures, organizations, developmental pathways, prior innovations, skills, and knowledge systems. When encountering a remarkable piece of technology, we must recognize that its existence embodies the combined efforts of thousands of contributors and coordinating mechanisms which have served to painstakingly develop and continue to actively support its capabilities.
Technology and science, while interconnected, are distinct in purpose and approach.
Science is the systematic study of the natural world through observation, experimentation, hypothesis formulation, and construct falsification. It seeks to uncover the principles and laws governing the universe, driven primarily by curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. Science often results in theories and models that describe (not explain) natural phenomena, with its primary objective being the expansion of human understanding rather than immediate practical application.1
Simply possessing a breakthrough science, however, is not the same thing as wielding it as technology.
Technology on the other hand, is the practical application of scientific knowledge or technical prior art to solve specific problems or meet human needs. It involves designing, creating, and using tools, machines, and systems to achieve practical outcomes. While technology often relies on the principles discovered through science, its goal is to create tangible products or processes that improve scientific or systemic efficacy and efficiency, solve real-world problems, or enhance quality of life.2
In short, science seeks to develop a broader and more detailed understanding of our world through systematic discovery and description. While technology in contrast, applies prior systematic discovery and art to create tools and systems that address specific needs.
One key misconception we hold as a relatively naive species is to view science as a vast, structured institution while perceiving technology as simply its prosaic outcome—a device, tool, or ‘thing.’ In truth, a technology is not a mere device; rather, it is a broad, structured domain in its own right, best described as a stack.
Political Technology refers to the deliberate abuse of scientific claims or theories—particularly those that are highly debated or uncertain—not to create practical devices, tools, or systems, but to achieve political, ideological, or social power. In this sense, the science is twisted or treated as if it were settled, regardless of its contested nature or lack of context, to justify actions or policies that consolidate authority, influence public opinion, or manipulate governance structures.
In my early days of systems engineering, my teams were fortunate to work with governmental, public, and private enterprises to develop lifecycle and support systems for a range of technological applications. For instance, one industrial testing and documentation device required a 32-month period of programmed maintenance and development. To enable this single device’s operational capability, we coordinated efforts across over 40 cottage, medium-scale, and large businesses, a dozen key large operations, and more than 1,000 personnel, all involving millions of miles in shipping. Over time, we lost possession of probably 8% of the controlled assets for this program through logistics, tech center mistakes, and shrink.
Between development and testing, parts procurement, systems upgrades, engineered operating cycles, support, and end-of-life disposition, this complex ecosystem of resources and expertise exemplified the vast coordination required to support even a single technological application. All this, was distinct from the research, testing, development, and deployment of the device itself, which involved the work of over 500 additional individuals inside other organizations.
This device served as a critical link in the chain of operational capability for an entire suite of similar devices. Altogether, this overarching suite encompassed multiple dozens of such devices, each entailing its own intricate development and support stack. In total, this prosaic suite, was backed by over 200 organizations and 12,000 professionals.
It’s important to note that the systems technology I use as an example here was a relatively mundane aspect of business and research operations. As the complexity of a technology grows, this support stack must, in turn, become even more intricate, chaotic, and robust to sustain its operation and development.
For this reason, when you observe an incredible device flying in the sky, it is unwise to regard it as merely a novel human or black technology and dismiss it with a simplistic Occam’s Razor wave of the hand.
Extraordinary technology demands extraordinary infrastructure. To frame this as a simple device is, in itself, an extraordinary claim cloaked in the guise of simplicity.
Among the tens of thousands of individuals involved in the development and lifecycle of even one unremarkable capability, some will inevitably reveal information, whether unintentionally or otherwise. Moreover, the support stack itself will result in bleed-over of associated technologies and systems into the public domain, intentionally or not. Such a reality cannot be contained solely through security clearances, controlled access, black budgets, or oaths of secrecy. Eventually, someone or something will spill the beans.
Occam's Butterknife: All things being equal the naive explanation is what people will most easily accept.
Be wary of those who advance pseudo-theory—default explanations that confidently clarify anything, everything, and nothing all at the same time—to dismiss extraordinary devices by means of comfortable, familiar, and in the end, extraordinarily naive explanation.
The Ethical Skeptic, “Technology is not a Device, but a Stack”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 31 Oct 2024; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/2024/10/31/technology-is-not-a-device-but-a-stack/
That was the best high level explanation of systems engineering that I have encountered. It’s a proper distinction between science and technology, and the stack references…pitch perfect. Thank you.
"Political Technology refers to the deliberate abuse of scientific claims or theories—particularly those that are highly debated or uncertain—not to create practical devices, tools, or systems, but to achieve political, ideological, or social power. In this sense, the science is twisted or treated as if it were settled, regardless of its contested nature or lack of context, to justify actions or policies that consolidate authority, influence public opinion, or manipulate governance structures." Sorry to be very simplistic but for me this has to be the perfect description of the period from 2020 onward.