If your water splitters are running, you should really just use the electricity they’re on to generate heat. Fire is especially dangerous in enclosed spaces.

Also for load balancing you could constantly be splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, then react them back into water when you need a large amount of energy at once as an alternative to electrical batteries which degrades less over time, if heat is all you want at least.

Some kind of combustion with oxidiser built in might always have an application. Chemical rocket boosters maybe? (Hydrogen specifically can also be turned back into electricity with like 80% efficiency in a fuel cell, FYI, although it’s sooo hard to store)

I suppose there might be The Martian-esque edge cases as well, where more complex, controlled chemical reactions are temporarily impractical, but like in the book and movie that’s highly unsustainable and you’ll die if you’re stuck doing it for long.

Okay.

So I see technology as something that is developed to be explicitly used to solve a problem or impart change, that is identifiable as its own thing, and so can be used but then also may be eventually made obsolete. Right? Like clay usage or refrigeration. It’s all just a means to an end.

So an animal comes along, and doesn’t have scrape-two-rocks-together to make fire, and then later does, that would be a technology.

Another way to think of it, which is… Admittedly, kind of embarrassing, but I do think makes sense, is if you could “develop it” or even theoretically see it being developed in a strategy game like Age of Empires or Civilization or something.

So, humans have not always had, and eventually developed marriage (I’m not talking about love, as that is a VERY different thing and not my words or choice of topic, for now, as that’s even more of a stretch, and I’m not surprised that we still use it) in its current form at some point. Somebody in history thought it would be a good idea, and it got popular and caught on (another indication that it could be technology).

Similarly, tribalism and war also evolved in similar ways.

Tribalism did not exist, somebody thought it was a good idea, it got popular, and now we have moved on, with some vestigial brain habits, because current society does not really need it to survive, but because how society is now is only like 200 years old (and because almost all humans still practice some form of it, including those excluded), evolution hasn’t yet removed our expectations of it. It is a biological need, like somebody else said, but I’m arguing that it, itself, is a developed technology as a means to an end that we will/may evolve past our already decreased need for - we just had this very social behavior for such a long time that it became ingrained into our biological expectations and reliances. I’m not a sociopath or psychopath, but some say that those could be attempts at evolving past tribalism or social behavior reliance. In some ways, if they are, they are VERY successful, as they absolutely do not rely on tribalism, but rather massively exploit it, to their own enormous success (business executives like CEOs have a high prevalence of sociopathy).

War, too, did not exist for a very long time. Especially formalized war. It still exists absolutely, and may soon come to be used again. But, regiments of soldiers standing in rows on a battlefield, waiting to try to kill each other is the tool of nations to exert power. Small, informal war is the tool of smaller communities, and so on and so forth… But, war of any kind still needs to be defined abstractly, too. So maybe we could call it: committed violent conflict towards an other entity. Right? Because one has to either outwardly or inwardly “declare war” on something or someone - a country on a different country, a people against another people, a people on a country, a country on a people, or, metaphorically, a toddler on a parent, a company on another company, a neighbor on another neighbor, or the HOA against a resident, whatever. In the literal examples though, they are all committed declarations of violence against an other something. War then, may have evolved from the emergence of peace, I don’t know. But war as a thing can not have always existed (enter intrusive thought of the animal kingdom being hell and constant war and thousand-eyed staring crabs and epic music) and at some point evolved into the tool we have known for thousands of years.

John Lennon imagined a world without war, as if to ironically imply it was a dark constant of living… But he still imagined it - he still imagined a world where we have evolved past the need for it - past the need for that technology to solve problems.

The important distinction here I think may be less about which of these specific things are or aren’t technology, but seeing humanity’s accomplishments, as dark as they are, as the technologies that we have developed, and therefore will eventually supersede the need for. Fire, marriage, cookies/candy, tribalism, war, pagers, fax machines, paint, or cars. I’m personally invested in the need to get past marriage, as where I live, it’s only limited to abrahamic religions’ formats, mainly Christianity, and therefore only one other person, and if the more core of them had their way, between only a cishet man and a cishet woman, for the sole purposes of rearing offspring and spreading the religions (technology) and cultures (also technology and subset technologies) more.