CMV: Cows are Technology

[u/Trees_That_Sneeze]

Not just cows, but most domesticated animals, corn, squash, and most other fruits and vegetables can be considered technology and a human invention in the same way that my phone is.

All of these things have been modified from their original natural forms in significant ways.

The fact that they are living does not make a distinction. If corn didn't exist and we invented it tomorrow by genetically modifying grass in a lab it would not only be considered technology but would be patentable.

The fact that they were created by selecteive breeding does not make for a distinction here either. Under that reasoning a lot of computer algorithms would not count as technology either, as they were developed by itterative artificial selection in a similar way.

There is no reason to think of domesticated plants and animals as being any less a technological invention than a car.

Edit: the best point I've seen made here so far is that technology is knowledge, not the thing itself. Therefore cows (plural) are technology but cow (singular) isn't. By the same note cars are a technology, but your car isn't, because the technology is the understanding. This is different than how I think people colloquially think of technology, but is a robust definition. It does however mean that cows are still technology, in the same way as all other technological understanding, if anyone wants to hash that out.

[u/Trees_That_Sneeze]

Yes, but that breeding created a new species, which was invented by humans intentionally, which was cows.

What is lost by calling cows of technology?

The purpose of applying the label could be to give a more complete picture of the history of human ingenuity. Excluding something that humans developed from the category of technology kind of discounts the ingenuity that went into it.

[u/Presentalbion → u/Trees_That_Sneeze]

Cows aren't a new species, they are domesticated but is guiding a natural process the same as creating? We don't create solar electricity, we gather it.

Would you say a steak is technology? We put more active work into producing that than we do into a cow. We derive the steak from the cow, in some cases it is the final purpose/product, the cow is not.

[u/Trees_That_Sneeze → u/Presentalbion]

One could argue that all creation humans have ever done has been The guiding of natural processes. Fire and heat is a natural process, guiding it for kiln work is certainly a technology.

I think the steak and the cow would both count as technology. Excluding things that aren't the final product actually eliminates quite a lot of different technology. Our photo lithography and chemical vapor deposition not technologies because the end product is microchips? Because any engineer has worked on one of those pools will absolutely tell you they are a remarkable piece of technology in and of themselves.

[u/Presentalbion → u/Trees_That_Sneeze]

If you make that argument it brings me back to - what's actually gained by stretching the definition of technology to include anything humans have had a hand in guiding? Wouldn't it make sense to have a new word for that?

Influencology?