dimensions. With molecules — which could not exist untilnthe universe had cooled enough to permit them — we seenthe first asymmetrical shapes and the birth of individuality.nMolecules have complex feedback systems, many degrees ofnfreedom, and the capacity to organize in periodic structuresnsuch as crystals. Living organisms are yet more asymmetrical,nfree, and capable of organization, and they contain anrecording of their own structure in the DNA language.nMind continues this story into the most complex formsnof consciousness,, self-determination, and communication.nThus the fifth axiom: THE STORY OF GOD IS ONEnOF INCREASING INDIVIDUALITY, MEANING,nAND FREEDOM. Progress is not a human invention, butna divine one.nIf the universe is God’s body, then we — and by “we” Inmean all the intelligent species in the universe — are thenmost sensitive, most aware, most self-organizing of its parts.nThough we are not the whole, we are that which increasinglynhas some knowledge of and control over the whole. Thusnthe sixth axiom: WE ARE THE NERVOUS SYSTEMnOF GOD.nA ‘sustainable relationship between humannbeings and nature’ is profoundly misleading.nNature does not sustain, but changesncumulatively, sometimes preserving earliernstates of it while inventing new ones, andnintegrating old and new together in a morenreflexive and self-observing way than before.nBut this nervous system is still very rudimentary, and hasnpenetrated and innervated only a tiny portion of thenuniverse up to date. We stand at the first trembling momentnof the history of the universe, the flash of a dawn that is anmere twenty billion years old, the dawn of a ten-trillion-yearnday. Thus a seventh axiom: GOD IS STILL ONLY AnFETUS. From this follows an eighth: WE SERVE GODnBY HELPING HIM TOWARD GREATER SELF-nAWARENESS.nAs organisms evolve, they develop more and morencomplex chemical, electrical, and mechanical systems,nknown as bodies, in order to control and be controlled byntheir environment—to act and to sense. All bodies arenprostheses, that is, they are in their elements, before they arenused by an organism, not part of the living organism itself,nbut pressed artificially into service by that organism. Forninstance, the carbon atoms that my body uses to construct itsnprotein and enzyme factories are exactly the same as theynwere before I commandeered them by eating them in mynasparagus. Likewise, the coat of tiny sticks and bits of gravelnthat a caddisworm constructs for itself is part of its body,nthough in itself not strictly alive. The body of a termitencolony includes its nest, that marvelously air-conditionednresidence containing nurseries, storehouses, factories, andnfarms. Likewise a beaver colony. The nest of the male bluensatin bowerbird is not even used as a nest at all, but as ancommunication device to persuade a female bowerbird ton30/CHRONICLESnnnmate, a piece of advertising. Yet in a strong sense that nest isnpart of its body. Plants and animals use probes, crutches,nshelters, tools, vehicles, weapons, and other prostheses thatndo not need to be directly connected to their flesh or nerves,nbut that are essential parts of their bodies. All living organismsndo so at the atomic and molecular level, even the crudestnmicroorganisms; the more advanced an organism is,nthe larger and more organized in themselves are the outsidenstructures that it is able to use and transform into itsnsynthetic body.nArtificial systems of investigation, control, and communication,nas these are, have a name: technology. Thenbody of a living organism is its technology; the technology ofnan organism is its body. Our life is, after all, only the patternnof information spelled out in our genes: a pattern thatnsurvives any given atom in our bodies, except for the onesnwe have not yet metabolized at our death. Our ownntechnology is an extension of our bodies; but our bodies arennothing more than such cumulative extensions. Biologicalnevolution, and arguably even pre-biological evolution, are innthis sense precisely the increase in the complexity and powernof technology. Nature is technology, then. Thus if nature isnthe body of God, then we may formulate a ninth surprisingnaxiom: GOD IS THE PROCESS OF INCREASINGnTECHNOLOGY.nIf our moral function is to serve God, then it is to helpnGod change from a fetus into a fully-developed being, tonrealize God’s future growth and self-awareness. The way tondo this is to continue to innervate the universe by knowledgenand control, and thus to extend our own bodies, the regionnof our own technology, throughout the universe. Thus thententh axiom: TO SERVE GOD IS TO INCREASEnTHE SCOPE, POWER, BEAUTY, AND DEPTH OFnTECHNOLOGY.nOur logic has brought us therefore to an astonishing andnperhaps shocking conclusion, utterly at odds with thenprevailing mood of our culture. How can we redeem thisnstatement, and make it fit what we feel about our role in thenworld?nThe answer must be that we need a thorough reevaluationnof what technology is and what we mean when we usenthe term. We know there is such a thing as bad technology;nbut the theological implications we have discovered make itnessential that we define what is good technology, becausenwithout good technology, we cannot adequately serve God.nIt will no longer be sufficient for us to attempt to get awaynfrom or to dissolve our technology; to do so, if it were evennpossible, would be to deny our divine duty and to commit ansin against the Holy Spirit. However, our investigation ofnwhat is good technology may have the virtue of clarifyingnwhat is bad technology, bad service of God, and thusnconstitute a powerful if gentle critique of society.nGood technology, first of all, increases and does notndecrease the organized complexity of the world. Thenscience fiction writer Ursula Le Guin has a lovely phrase fornthis: the purpose of the Ekumen, the loose confederation ofnintelligent species she describes in her novel The Left Handnof Darkness, is “to increase the intensity and complexity ofnthe field of intelligent life.” Perhaps there is a littlenbio-chauvinism in this formula — we might also want ton