#32. Play is the Mother of Invention; Necessity is the Mother of Engineering.

Here I modify a common proverb and illustrate the modification with the human invention of the wheel and macaque invention of the hammer.

Dear friends,

“Necessity is the mother of invention,” according to the well-known English proverb, said to come originally fom Plato. But is it really? I suggest a revision, which I think has more truth: “PLAY is the mother of invention; necessity is the mother of engineering.” Play opens the mind to original ideas and creations; necessity takes some of those creations and refines them for practical ends. Play takes us into the realm of imagination. Necessity keeps us focused on the here and now, the familiar, to solve immediate problems.

Rawpixel/ free to use

Who Invented the Wheel and Axle?

Here’s an example. The wheel—or, more accurately, the wheel-axle combination that makes it possible to build a cart—is often regarded as the greatest technological invention in human history. It revolutionized the way people lived. The cart, especially if you hitched it to an ox, made it possible to haul heavy loads, of lumber or agricultural produce or anything, over land far more efficiently than before. People no longer had to live next to rivers if they needed to transport things. Once the cart was developed, it went viral, as we would say today. Soon (well, within a couple centuries) there were carts everywhere.

The earliest functioning wheels and axle in the archaeological record, however, were not under a cart, but under a small ceramic coyote, a child’s toy, found with the remains of a child buried about 6000 years ago (Cassidy, 2020). It was most likely made by some playful potter who thought it would be fun, and provide fun for her or his child, to make a toy animal that could be pulled easily with a string without falling over. Similar findings were made, dating just a bit later, in various places in northern Europe. It was not until several centuries later that skilled European craftsmen took the wheels and axle idea to build functioning carts. The cart was an amazing feat of engineering for its time. The wheels and axles had to be perfectly round to minimize friction and the whole thing stout enough to bear heavy weights. But the engineering would not have been possible had not the model of a wheel and axle already been available in the craftsman’s world, in the simpler, more crude, miniature, easier to make form of children’s toys.

It would be interesting, I think, to examine the whole history of technological inventions, from the wheel on to the modern desk-top computer, to see how the original insight that led to that invention arose. I haven’t yet done that research, but I bet that in many cases the insights arose in play. People just fooling around, for fun or to create a toy of some sort, came up with a truly new idea, which later turned out to have practical applications when engineers or technicians got their hands on it and made appropriate refinements. But now I’ll turn to an example from the non-human animal world.

How Did Macaque Monkeys Discover that Stones Can Crack Shells?

Technological invention is rare in non-human animals, but wherever it has been documented it appears to be the young of the species that gain the first insight, through play. Here’s one of my favorite examples, which comes from extensive observations of macaque monkeys in Japan.

Beginning in the 1970s, juvenile macaques in some groups were observed playing with stones, a previously unobserved behavior (Huffman, Nahallage, & Leca, 2008). They would pick them up, sometimes cuddle them like babies, sometimes throw them, and—most significantly for our story—sometimes smash one stone against another, apparently enjoying the sound. To the degree that the observers could tell, this was all pure play, it seemed to serve no purpose other than enjoyment.

At first only juveniles played this way. Adults neither invented such behaviors nor imitated the young. However, younger juveniles imitated older ones in stone play, and stone players continued to play with stones when they themselves became adults. So, in later observations, adults as well as juveniles could be seen playing with stones, and new young macaques picked up the behaviors from their elders. So, stone play became a cultural tradition in some macaque groups, characteristic of the whole colony and transmitted from generation to generation.

Then, some years later, researchers found a group of coastal living macaques that not only played with stones, but also used them to crack open shellfish (Tan, 2017). The step from smashing a stone against a stone to produce a sound to smashing a stone against a clam to produce food was a relatively small one, but it had the huge consequence of turning the stone from a plaything to a tool. We don’t know just how that step occurred, or whether it was a juvenile or an adult who first took it, but a category of behavior developed originally by juveniles in play provided the foundation for a valuable new way of obtaining food for these shore-living macaques. Once stones were used to crack shells, macaque engineers (to use the term loosely) modified the smashing technique for maximal effect in opening shells.

So, we have here not just an example of play providing the foundation for a tool, but an example in which the play form itself was clearly initiated and carried on by juveniles. The behavior became a cultural tradition for adults only when the juvenile inventors became adults.

Further Thoughts

The macaque example illustrates a general idea, which is far truer for humans than for macaques or any other animal group. The idea is this: The juvenile phase of life is a phase of discovery and invention.

When a child comes into the world, everything is new to that child. Everything the child learns about the world is a discovery, and every skill the child develops is an innovation. Children are primed for discovery and innovation. Curiosity and playfulness are the means of that priming. As humans grow older and more experienced, they develop more fixed beliefs and set ways of doing things, and consistent with that, the drives to explore and play tend to decline. Some people (such as the scientists I described in Letter #28) manage to hold on to high levels of curiosity and playfulness throughout their lives, and those people may continue to develop new insights throughout their lives that add to the culture.

But the peak of inventiveness, more generally, is adolescence and young adulthood. These are people who know quite a bit about the world but recognize that there is still so much out there that they do not know and would like to know. Their thinking is not as narrowly channeled as that of older adults. Their degrees of playfulness and curiosity are still high (unless they have been quashed by forced schooling), and that combined with their growing knowledge and skill prime them for culturally new discoveries and inventions. I plan to pursue this idea in future letters.

As always, I invite you to share your thoughts and questions in the comments section below. These increase the value of the letters for me and other readers.

If you are enjoying these letters, please recommend them to others who might enjoy them. If you are not yet a subscriber, please subscribe. If you have a free subscription, please consider upgrading to paid—at just $50 for a year. All funds I receive through paid subscriptions are used to support nonprofit organizations I’m involved with that are aimed at bringing more play and freedom to children’s lives.

With respect and best wishes,

Peter

References

Huffman, M. A., Nahallage, C. A. D., & Leca, J-B. (2008).  Cultured monkeys: Social learning cast in stones. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 410-414.

Cassidy, C. (2020). Who invented the wheel? Chapter in Cassidy’s book, Who Ate the First Oyster?

Tan, A. W. Y. (2017). From play to proficiency: The ontogeny of stone-tool use in coastal-foraging long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) from a comparative perception-action perspective.  Journal of Comparative Psychology, 131(2), 89–114.