Recommendations for Cypherpunks Books

[Jim Choate]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, dmolnar wrote:

> 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). 

I think most, that entertainment value is what helped at least in part to
make their discussion palitable. After all it follows if the book is both
popular and influencial it is actually changing peoples mind.

> 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. 

Wells was contemporanious with the growth of atomic physics. I think it's
more likely a cose of being too close.

> 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). 

Actualy it gives us a reason, both reasoned and emotional, to consider
alternatives like 'harm'. They're more pragmatic and easier to define
across social belief systems. Things like murder, rape, & theft are pretty
common. Then we include concepts like freedom of religion and speech and
we begin to see a framework where a multi-cultural society can exist. It
allows the keeping of local 'web-of-trusts' while at the same providing a
more general framework for commerce and human experession.

> 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." 

I think the operable point is 'same premises'. The true test of a theory
is when the parties start at different premises.

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

A more specific form of socialism.

> Aren't they considered two sides of the die? 

n-sided.

> 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?

Oh, not at all. I'm simply saying that considering human nature any
society that isn't paranoid isn't going to last long. Like it or not
(personaly I'm rather fond of it) the human animal is a predator. A damn
smart, ruthless, cold-blooded, determined killer. That is one of the prime
facts as to why we got to where we are. This realization is one of the
reasons I'm interested in the subject.

> 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? 

No, I actually expect to see a growth in the desire for anonymity. As
people realize the true extend of data mining and the extent of both
commercial and government databases they will become more paranoid. People
will finaly come to realize explicitly that freedom IS security (which
I've always felt was the point behind Franklin's quote).

> the liberatory power of multiple identity - instead of footnotes in books
> about e-commerce noting that web polls can be easily pseudospoofed?

I've always felt these predictions didn't understand the fundamental
nature of the network requirements. The current internet and OS technology 
simply isn't up to it.
 
> "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.

Ok, I've spoken poorly. I'm not talking of the society per se but rather
the network that it is built upon. If we follow the current model Lessig's
point of regulation by compiler will come to pass. However, if instead we
have a network infrastructure that is end to end developed Open Source it
provides no room to regulate. Lawmakers can't as a matter of course pass a
law dictating what network stack you might use (at least in the US). That
would provide a base for a more humane and reasonable society. A society
where freedom of expression and social responsibility are balanced as they
should be (at least under the 4th).

> 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. 

http://einstein.ssz.com/hangar18

> 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. 

I'll have to disagree, it's a statistical mechanical problem. Not
deterministic at all. One of the primary memes, and primary problems, is
this point. It's almost like talking to DeCarte.
 
> Can you imagine a latter-day Gandhi who exhorts people to move back to the
> cities to live with each other again? No? Why? 

I don't see the relevancy.

> Yes? Why arcologies and not Gandhi? 

Because within the arcology the society can set its own norms while at the
same time interacting with others. The question is what holds such an
arcology together? A strong common culture.

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

Actually for the arcology/zaibatsu to exist will require nanotechnology
and several other technologies to become practical. If we don't develop
then the entire process is fall down because the resource base won't
expand as fast as the need. Without the technology there is no way to
address the need.

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

Just remember, 20 generations is effectively billions. Consider that
society when it has moved off planet based societies and begun to process
extra-planetary resources. Lifetimes potentially moving toward the 500
year mark, genetic engineering to build custom chimeras. Consider the
potential for ark's with artificial wombs, stem cell management, and gene
banks.

> 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?

Well that would depend on a family by family basis. In general what one
can say is that it will build a social structure where children visit
their grandparents for much farther than through their teens. And on for
the great grandparent...

> Instead of isolating vertically, societies isolate horizontally. Lots of
> parallel institutions with mandatory minimum and mandatory retirement
> ages.

Won't fly, but I'd like to hear your description of the driving forces...

> 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. 

What 'large bumps'? Considering that most generations will be 20-30 years
apart in age (at least at first, expect the age between generations to
extend outward). In addition the additional storage of culture will act as
a mediating affect.

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

So be it. Remember, something must happen. It will happen as a result of
cause/effect and random events.

> 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...

I'm not predicting disaster, a slow lingering drown on ones own waste.

    ____________________________________________________________________

           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 --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------