Recommendations for Cypherpunks Books

Sun Jan 21 09:36:25 PST 2001

On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, dmolnar wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> > > (1) - books on future worlds and spaces: in particular, those that explore 
> > > social, moral, political, technical, ethical issues (to be science fiction), 
> > > or those that merely explore worlds (to be fantasy)
> > 
> > I see the utility in fiction to tell us what is most likely not to happen.
> 
> "If I name a future, then it won't happen" - ? 
> 
> This reminds me of the view that SF writers are trying to "predict the
> future." I don't think picturing "the future" and then being "wrong" or
> "right" about that is what fiction is usually about. More often about
> commenting on the present. 

I'd say it's primarily about entertainment. Even if it's an intentional
social/technical commentary. There is also the point to be made that
society is effected more by those things which were unexpected (I don't
know if 'revolution' is the correct word here???) than evolutionary. The
change of electricity, the printing press, etc.

For some potential non-fictional ways to cast the problem:

The New Renaissance: Computers and the next level of civilization
D.S. Robertson
ISBN 0-19-512189-9

Technologies of knowing: A proposal for the human sciences
J. Willinsky
ISBN 0-8070-6106-9

Code and other laws of cyberspace
L. Lessig
ISBN 0-465-03912-x

> > 'defining good and bad'? Not possible, there are no absolute standards by
> > which to judge.
> 
> The definition would assert some standard by which to judge. Not
> necessarily grounded in any "absolute standard." You can reject that
> standard, of course, but there are still people trying to formulate and
> defend these standards.

But 'self-referential' is by no means equivalent to 'absolute'. As to your
last statement, I see we agree. The concept of 'good and bad' and any
consequent 'definitions' are a function of 'people'. It IS a relative
issue and therefore open to debate. This is a clear indicator that this
particular issue is not axiomatic. It is clearly an affect, no more.

> One effort in this direction which comes to mind is the "communtarian"
> approach applied to privacy by Amitai Etizoni. What I've heard of it I
> don't like, but I don't know much more than a few basic things -
> "community" above all, corporate invasions of privacy pure evil, state
> intrusions less evil because subject to scrutiny. 
> 
> To this you could oppose the sort of libertarian standard more often seen
> on cypherunks, with its familiar consequences. 

I've always considered 'communitarian' to be a branch of (wait for it),

socialism. It requires consistency of behaviour, down to the level of
trying to micro-manage individuals individual thoughts. Trying to reach
that utopian ESS of the human soul I suppose.

In defence of my criticism of ESS's applied to biology I offer (being a
dutiful Gaian Pantheist),

Slanted Truths: Essays on Gaia, Symbiosis, and Evolution
L. Margulis, D. Sagan (yes that Sagan, which should id that Margulis :)
ISBN 0-387-94927-5

> I am also reminded of the phrase "technology is neutral" and how it seems
> to polarize a debate. One side regards it as an argument that banning
> technology is misguided. The other side as evidence of total naivete. I
> don't suppose anyone has actually tried analysing where that phrase or
> "technical vs. social means" pops up?

The cosmos is certainly neutral. But since 'technology' exists only within
the context of a human society (ie humans build technology) trying to cast
that as 'neutral' (eg government funding & corporate research) is either
naive enthusiasm for reductionism or else intentional misdirection. I've
alwasy rankled at the concept that 'technical' and 'social' are not sides
of the same n-sided die called human psychology. Reductionism has its
place, it is not however, everyplace.

> Does this thing have connections to the outside world? To other PDAs
> within range? How much range? Who can you contact with this? Can you sell
> the results of your computation to others? 
> 
> Now if you were the only one with a PDA, maybe you could figure out a way
> to sell computation to other people just by doing arithmetic. Perform
> parlor tricks and pass yourself off as a calculator. But everyone has a
> PDA. So now you need to have skills...

<shrug> A lot of good questions I have no intention of answering :). Make
up your own set of rules, play them against each other...

If you find something interesting, share please.

> > Ugh. The thought of a community that is so paranoid it exist through
> > ubiquitous crypto is a bit self-contradictory I think. Who would you trust
> > to make the technology?
> 
> Who said anything about the community being paranoid? You can use
> cryptography to do new things beyond hiding data, you know. Probably the
> most pressing would be authentication and controlling the data presented
> to the world about you. Digital signatures and credentials.

There is a certain level of paranoia (recognition of a real threat
certainly qualifies as paranoia in my book) required to even conjure up
the concept of security and crypto as an instance...

Actually I susepect that society will advance to impliment crypto in the
background. It will be used to enforce the bounds of each indviduals
social boundaries. Yes, it does embody 'web-of-trust' but not as the only
or primary mechanism for society as a whole.

This again, is the reason I believe that the Open Source movement within
the context of Lessig's book has an opportunity to build a much more
humane and reasonable society. I also believe the odds are very low it
will come to pass. Human sollipsism.

> If this PKI stuff works, then in 50 years it won't be the paranoids that
> can exist only through ubiquitous crypto - it'll be *all* of us. Digital
> driver's licenses and all. (Thanks to VeriSign for that awful phrase). 

It'll work. But there are other factors which will be concommitent.
Consider the extension of the average human lifespan on insurance,
investment, business, etc. There are other factors at work which will
impact the society and the economy in a equally strong (potentialy much
stronger perhaps) but 'negative' way, and I don't mean bad, I mean in
opposite sign to way. These technologies are going to cause a period of
inflation, and that will cause various social and political changes, that
will be like nothing we've ever seen. This should limit the 'theoretical'
maximum change of technology over some reference (and arbitrary) period.
Once a new equilibrium is reached then there should be a rapid expansion
until the next 'big thing'. In our case the chance is there that we might
get to see it first person. It'd be like being alive when Guttenberg first
printed his book and surviving until today. What will be the effect on
'family' when 20 generations are alive and communicating at one time?
(coincidentally, there's a web-of-trust).

> Now you can go further and ask "what if a society had digital auction
> protools?" or "what if selling your CPU cycles was normal and easy?" 

I'm trying to get a Plan 9 network up and running to do just that now for 
Plan 9 users here in Austin. Offer a 'virtual community' workspace that
users can map into their personal namespace (ooh, another web-of-trust ;).

In support I offer,

Small Worlds: The dynamics of networks between order and randomness
D.J. Watts
ISBN 0-691-00541-9

Multi-agent Systems: An introduction to distributed AI
J. Ferber
ISBN 0-201-36048-9

If you're interested in using a OS that embodies a lot of the basic
requirements for distributed communities, distributed processing,
distributed file spaces, low level network encryption, distributed
anonymous remailers, distributed data havens, communal workspaces, 
etc. then check out Plan 9.

http://plan9.bell-labs.com

I also have a mailing list that is available,

Hangar 18

http://einstein.ssz.com/hangar18

> or "what if everyone knew about time-lock puzzles and time-release crypto
> and could use it in everyday life?" or "what if the elections went
> according to protocol X?" 

I believe the point would be that society would progress beyond the need
for such things. What this will engender will be a return to 'family' or
'zaibatsu' centered human societies. Economies based on competition won't
exist because each community will share the resources as required. It will
be a large barter commune. The interfaces between these 'arcologies' will
be very well defended and about the only place 'trade' will take place and
that will be through information exchange not the actual exchange of
goods. Why? Because each arcology will be self-suffient within the domain
of its ownings.

Remember you've got 20 generations alive at the same time. 'Family' is set
to return with a vengeance.

My guess is we've got a space of about 200 years to get off this mudball
and get out there. If we don't we'll drown in our own waste. The end
result will be that humans won't live on planets per se. And that's got
maybe 500 to a 1000 years to happen or else the proto-society will run out
of gas. The only real hope/good there is that pockets of humans will be
scattered about. That raises the odds of the phoenix arising.

>  > How would anyone have the time to make the horde
> > of technologies this sort of society requires? 
> 
> PGP is here now, though of course no one uses it. PKI seems to be driven
> by something, e-commerce maybe. Academics and corporate research are
> looking for new and fun things to do with math. Sometimes they hire
> students to implement those fun things. Sometimes other people read the
> papers and implement the fun things themselves.
> 
> Where did anonymous remailers come from?

But you're talking about developing a society, not a group of friends that
numbers in a few hundred...

I don't buy it.

    ____________________________________________________________________

           Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a
           smaller group must first understand it.

                                           "Stranger Suns"
                                           George Zebrowski

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------