Recommendations for Cypherpunks Books

[dmolnar]

Hi Jim, 

> 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.

This suggests a tangent - If we look at works of fiction which were
politically or socially influential in their day, how many were
entertaining? how many were "good stories"? A lot of polemics end up
seeming transparent and thin today (I'm thinking in particular of
Bellamy's _Looking Backward_, but there are probably other examples). 
They had to capture their audience somehow, which seems to say something
about the audience of the time (or maybe just about the tendency people
have to overlook faults in a book which agrees with them). 

As for things unexpected - maybe it would be interesting to look at the
literature issued just after the possibility of the new invention becomes
known. Atomic power, for instance, was written about by H.G. Wells long
before the atomic bomb was built. Maybe atomic power is too extreme a
case, though. 

Bringing this back to "cypherpunk literature", such a look might provide
parallels with the emergence (or lack thereof) of crypto-oriented fiction. 

> 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.

Yes, it seems we agree. Except it seems that instead of dismissing
definitions of "good" and "evil" as "an affect, no more" (if I'm reading
you correctly?) - it seems to me that this is where the real battles are
fought. So instead of being dismissive, it seems like a better idea to
*pay attention*. (This may be a sign of youth). 

Even so - in math class I am told "if two reasonable people start from
the same premises, they should arrive at the same conclusion." In
philosophy I find that Frege called a failure to apply the same laws of
logic a "new form of madness." 

In the ethics course, I am told "we always expect reasonable people to
arrive at *different* conclusions." 

Odd. 

> I've always considered 'communitarian' to be a branch of (wait for it),
> 
> socialism. It requires consistency of behaviour, down to the level of

Here I thought you were going to say COMMUNISM! :-) 

I just came across a biography of Robespierre. In it he's mentioned as
writing an essay for a prize competition in the 1770s, in which "under the
influence of Montesquieu" he condemns the republican ideal of <<vertu>> as
requiring unnatural conformity of action and dishonourable actions. Before
turning around and reflecting that the monarchist alternative cannot be
justified on grounds of public utility...well, we know where he eventually 
ends up.  

Anyway, it seems that "community" has taken the place of the "general
will" or "will of the people" as the utopian abstraction of the day. This
is annoying, because there *does* seem to be some merit to talking about a
"community" (or "society" for that matter) as a unit for purposes of
analysis. Even anarchists (especially anarchists?) talk about community.
(Godwin's "public opinion more powerful than whips and chains.")  As soon
as you do so, however, suddenly you've accidentally imported all this
"communitarian" baggage...

> 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

Onto the to-skim pile - thanks. 


> 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.

Aren't they considered two sides of the die? I always thought that was the
point of the pervasive "Two Cultures" dichotomy - that you have a binary
opposition between "techs" on the one hand and "humanists" on the other.
Which, like many binary oppositions, fails to satisfy.


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

Sounds like an invitation to build a genetic algorithm. Heh. 

> 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...

OK, but this does not strike me as *absurdly* paranoid. I understood your
point to be that any society paranoid enough to use massive amounts of
cryptography would be absurdly paranoid (maybe unstable). Maybe there's a
question of degree here?

Plus not every member of the society must be equally paranoid, once the
infrastructure is in place. How paranoid are my parents when they use SSL
to send credit card info to a web site - without even realizing that
they're using SSL or how it works? Paranoia on the part of a few can
change the lives of many.


> 
> 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

So you think we'll end up with "one citizen, one identity?" Do you think
this will be an explicit norm - that people will react to the idea of
having two distinct identities online the way we would to having two
distinct identities in "real life" today? 

It wasn't that long ago that Sherry Turkle's _Life on the Screen_ was
supposed to be *the* account of how "we" were going to relate in
cyberspace. Except that who uses MUDs anymore? Where do we find the open
vistas of text, the vast plains of meaning, the mirror-stage-online which
so beautifully "informed" Turkle's account? Is anyone still talking about
the liberatory power of multiple identity - instead of footnotes in books
about e-commerce noting that web polls can be easily pseudospoofed?

(Plus I found the book much less convincing than _The Second Self_ - maybe
because it strayed from the focus on cognitive development and questions
like "what is alive?" which made _The Second Self_ gripping. Last I heard,
Turkle is back asking kids "what is alive?" with respect to Furbies.
Should be intriguing to see what comes out. )


 > 
> 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.

"Humane" and "reasonable" ? I'm sure you're right, but those two words do
not inspire much confidence in me right now. (Coming out of a course on
French Social and Political Doctrines 1789-present will do that). 

Frankly, a "humane" and "reasonable" society issuing from Open Source
principles makes me think of a Committee on Public Safety run by Slashdot
readers. (Disclaimer: I am a Slashdot reader). This is no doubt unfair,
but the semi-political pronouncements I've seen from GNU have a nasty
could-be-called "communitarian" streak in them.

> 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 ;).

Oh, cool. Some friends of mine are working with Plan 9. I'll have to check
this out at some point...I've been too busy to pay much attention. 


> 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.

Perhaps. I'm wary of making these kinds of pronouncements. It's a
curve-fitting problem. "Here are six events - build a trend around them." 
The rise of planned communities (including Summerlin, where I live in
Nevada) *could* point the way towards arcologies and master-planned
living. It could also engender a backlash which ends up with everyone
going back to live in the cities to create closer communities with their
fellow (wo)man. 

Can you imagine a latter-day Gandhi who exhorts people to move back to the
cities to live with each other again? No? Why? 

Yes? Why arcologies and not Gandhi? 

Then our entire deliberations are blown to bits by advances in
nanotechnology...

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

It would provide large family-owned corporations with even more
interesting politics than they might currently posess, that's for sure.

An alternative may be that the generation gap asserts itself with a
vengeance. Dad and Jr. can't get along - what about Dad and the 17th?
Instead of isolating vertically, societies isolate horizontally. Lots of
parallel institutions with mandatory minimum and mandatory retirement
ages. Kids born in years between large bumps end up caught on the edge -
perpetually too old for the ones behind, too young to ever be accepted in
the society born before them. 

So all this is fine, but I dislike saying that this is what "will happen." 

> 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

I tend to agree with you - but I also remember that in the 70's we had
predictions of world disaster by the 00's. Not quite there yet. Still
Malthus has to be right in the long run...

Anyway, I want space for less easily justifiable reasons. Such as "what's
out there?" and "we can do it." Also I want to go (was into space before
ever heard of cryptography) :-). Unfortunately I'm too tall and too heavy
to make the trip on anything NASA has right now. Besides my family
history of heart trouble. 


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

If the will is there, it will be developed. Look at what's going to happen
to electronic voting now. After Florida, people really seem to want it.
MIT and Cal Tech have announced an initiative to build a "real" system.
Build a market by building consensus and the technology will step up.

(I suppose I should dispute in passing the dichotomy between a society and
"a group of friends that numbers in a few hundred" - but the fundamental
point seems to be scaling. Which is a problem no matter what you call the
user.)

The reason why remailers are limited to a group of friends that numbers in
a few hundred is that no one has articulated a clear and compelling reason
to "everybody" why "everybody" needs to use them. People have argued why
"everybody" needs remailers *around* or why they're a good thing, or at
least why *not to ban them*, but this is different. 

No one is advertising for anonymous remailers on the radio. No one is on
the television talking about how we need a national network of anonymous
remailers. No one seems to be making any money off the things, *except*
maybe zks.net . Change this and we get the infrastructure for a society. 

-David