From: Zooko Journeyman <zooko@xs4all.nl>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:04:08 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: counter-intuitive -- spam is good for you.  anonymous assholes are your friend
Message-ID: <199710021138.NAA23846@xs1.xs4all.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




I just got through reading another hilarious post from 
Anonymous, and I realized that instead of filtering anonymous 
posts _out_ of my reading list like I used to, I've gradually 
started filtering them _in_.


I was thinking about why, and it illustrates a counter-
intuitive hypothesis that's been germinating in my head for a 
few days/months/years.  I'll call it "Zooko's Law of 
Evolutionary, Counter-Intuitive, Painful Serendipity":


     In an evolving ecosystem, things which appear to do harm 
     often result in benefit.



For example, if you consider having lots of healthy, happy 
bunnies to be a benefit, you might consider an influx of 
voracious wolves to be bad news.  But in many cases the 
selective pressure exerted by the wolf population will result 
in stronger bunny genes, healthier bunnies, more bunny babies 
and cetera.  In the case that the wolves leave again, or some 
other aspect of the environment changes (winter comes, etc.) 
then the population of passive grass-nibbling bunnies will turn
out to be disappointingly fragile compared to the population of
well-exercised wolf-fleeing bunnies.


Now you might complain that I am not playing fair by tossing in
these hypothetical environment changes late in the game.  If we
are evaluating _just_ the influx of wolves, and not some 
possible developments such as the wolves passing on, winter 
coming and so forth, then "obviously" the bunnies were better 
off without wolves.


But perhaps that's just the point.  In an evolving ecosystem, 
you _can't_ measure success without considering the likelihood
of continual change.


You might also object that I am sneaking in some unfounded 
Platonic concept of "bunny goodness" which only holds in 
certain contexts.  I.e. maybe the environment will change in a
way that penalizes bunnies with sinewy muscles and fast hearts
and rewards big fat stupid bunnies who only think of the next 
nibble.


Okay.  Maybe I am.  But my intuition tells me that this isn't 
some human-prejudice Platonic Ideal slipping in, but that in 
fact competition _does_ usually make the competitors better 
suited for all sorts of likely environmental changes.



Now why do the cpunks care?  Because I think the invasion of 
flaming, spamming Vulisses and "Graham-John Buellers" was good
for the cpunks list.  It drives away people with too little
intelligence, stomache-strength, technical know-how or egostic
attitude manage their own list input without depending on group
dynamics to manage it for them.


Okay, so like all "natural" selections, it takes out a few of 
the good guys too.  I still miss Perry Metzger's involvement, 
but if we had to lose Perry in order to lose a few dozen 
clueless loudmouths, then so be it.



Anyway, I consider it a Bad Thing that anonymous remailers are
so difficult to learn and use.  I would approve if point-n-
click remailers and remailer clients were widely distributed. 
But in another application of Zooko's Law of Evolutionary 
Serendipity, the fact that remailers are hard to use means that
the people who use them are smarter than average.


So maybe _that's_ why I've found it rewarding to select _for_ 
anonymous posts instead of against in recent times.  


And why I toy with the notion of fomenting the kind of infowar
"war games" that Phill Hallam-Baker hates.



Damn, I wish Daniel Dennett were reading this list.



Regards,

Zooko Journeyman

P.S.  Just to tie up one loose end-- you might notice that 
I counted the flame-invasion as a goodness because it drove off
"clueless loudmouths".  But what's the difference between a 
"Graham-John Buellers" and a normal crypto-groupie?  Is this a
double-standard?  Not at all.  The clueless loudmouths that 
I am glad to be rid of are an insidious sort, like William H. 
Geiger III, Paul Bradley, and rest-his-soul Jim Bell who are 
on-topic and sane enough to attract attention from the real 
thinkers, but who are prolific and mediocre enough to pull down
the over-all quality of discourse.  Apologies to the named 
people for hurting your feelings.  It's nothing personal, but 
I have to call 'em like I see 'em.  Cut down the volume of your
output to just the very best of your articles, and maybe I'll 
stop filtering you out.