Cybernauts Awake!

Actually entitled Cybernauts Awake!: Ethical and Spiritual Implications of Computers, Information Technology and the Internet, the book was written by the Church of England's Board for Social Responsibility. If you're interested in the social ramifications of information technology, click below to learn more. Cybernauts Awake!: Ethical and Spiritual Implications of Comput author Church of England Board for Social Responsibility pages 94 publisher Church House Publishing, 1999 rating 9/10 reviewer Ben Ostrowsky ISBN 0-7151-6586-0 summary Anglican geeks consider the relationships among technology, culture and spirituality "But that trick never works!"

It's easy to write an encyclical about morality and cyberspace -- just read Usenet and you'll see what I mean. The hard part is writing about spiritual and ethical questions so as to invite a broad readership to think about it for themselves. The people of the Church of England's Board for Social Responsibility are not the first to consider these questions. In fact, their thoughtful discussion of the issues has almost certainly benefited from observing where other such efforts have gone wrong. While some references are made to a generic Christian perspective, for example, the authors avoid preaching. Rather than condemning piracy, for example, they simply note that "the fact that the copy does not appear to cost the original owner anything, nor to deprive the owner of anything, shifts many people's moral balance."

"This time for sure!"

Perhaps more than in other treatments, geeks and our responsibilities are addressed specifically. Coders are asked to 'love your user as yourself', to consider good design a moral issue, and to reflect on the general implications of the work being done. Similar encouragement is given to IT directors: listen to the geeks and try to understand them! General suggestions for users are also offered: "remember systems are dust", as one heading puts it. Some may be dustier than others, of course, but I found it a refreshing way of saying 'garbage in, garbage out'.

When not framing the broader picture, Cybernauts Awake! also touches on specific issues of interest to Slashdot readers. Shrinkwrap licenses, for example, prompt a discussion of the balance of power between the manufacturer and the consumer. Although many inexpert users are likely to blame themselves for the effects of bugs, the authors note, the market generally rewards new features but not added stability. Similar attention is given to the human-computer boundary (with an explanation of the Turing test), communities (defined by geography or common interests), globalization and cryptography.

"Whoops -- don't know my own strength!"

I appreciate that the authors have kept the perspective broad enough that very few toes are stepped on. Having said that, I must note a subtle but cheap shot. "There is a huge free-speech culture" online, the authors write, "and in the US provided you are not an anti-abortionist, it seems that you can post anything you like." The site they allude to certainly bears mentioning, but without knowing the details (people's names were put on a list and were then crossed off after they had been killed by opponents of abortion), many readers may simply conclude that US laws do not permit speech on one side of the issue. Fortunately, this is a rare exception to a well-balanced discussion.

Recommended Audience

Cybernauts Awake! will be enjoyed by most readers interested in the subject of cyberethics (e-thics?), and can serve as a thoughtful tour of technological issues for readers with more knowledge of Christianity than of the Internet.

Availability

Unfortunately, the major booksellers have yet to add this title to their catalogs. I had to order directly from Church House Publishing (the official Anglican publishing house). Happily, my copy arrived in Florida within a few days of my order; the £8.67 total was translated without a hitch by my bank as a $14.14 charge.

Table of Contents

1. Dream Machines
   So what's new?
   Good dreams, bad dreams
   Choosing our dreams
   What this book is for
2. What Is Cyberspace?
   Digital communications
   Virtual worlds
   On being digital
   Beyond physical limits
   Cyberspace: what lies ahead?
3. Into Cyberspace
   What is true?
   What are real relationships?
   Who has the power?
   What is a person?
   Concluding remarks
4. Space Probing
   Introduction
   The Christian story
   Christian response
   The continuing story
   Concluding remarks
5. Relationships in Cyberspace
   Friendship
   Neighbourliness
   Community
   Church fellowship
   Physicality as reality
   Summary
6. Living with Cyberspace
   Business and people in cyberspace
   Property
   Justice and accountability
   Exclusion
   Privacy
   Secrets and lies
   Implants: bringing cyberspace inside
   Deciding what we want
7. Cybernauts Awake!
   Implications for information technologists
   Implications for directors
   Implications for users
   Implications for parents and guardians
   Implications for Christians
8. Appendix: Annotated Bibliography

Comments

Links - book is online!

[The Musician]

There was a "Press Release"-type document about this book on the church paper's web site. It has disappeared, but still appears in the Google cache.

The PR says that the entire book can be found online at www.cybernautsawake.net For me that site redirects until I get to here.

--

Some interesting thoughts from the book.

[AtariDatacenter]

Lots of familiar themes here. Lots of high tech topics in the "Into Cyberspace" chapter. On the subject of relationships, it talks about tribes. Tribes used to be formed by geographic location. Today, we have a choice of neighbors in a virtual tribe -- such as Slashdot. Elsewhere in the book it talks about the "death of distance".

A few interesting quotes:
"Technology has the power to change relationships between people. It is not neutral."
"If a standard is 'owned' by one company... then the company ends up with something very like a monopoly."
"People 'in' cyberspace and deeply experienced with it tend to overrate it."
"Money has always been somewhat virtual..."

Most useless chapter: Cyberspace: what lies ahead?

I wouldn't take this book as an authorative reference on cyberspace, but it does point out a lot of interesting things.

Re:Some interesting thoughts from the book.

[Kaa]

"Technology has the power to change relationships between people. It is not neutral."

So, if it's not neutral, is it good or evil? Inquiring Slashdotters want to know!

Besides I don't see the causal relationship: "Gravity has the power to pull people to the ground. It is not neutral".

"If a standard is 'owned' by one company... then the company ends up with something very like a monopoly."

Duh!

"People 'in' cyberspace and deeply experienced with it tend to overrate it."

Compared to whom? What's the reference group? If it is Joe Random Luser, then there are a lot of things he believes to be overrated ;)

"Money has always been somewhat virtual..."

At the time of, say, ancient Greeks -- no (obviously). Basically, the advent of banks made money somewhat virtual (your money was a line in the account ledger) and that was, I believe, somewhere around the XIV century.

Kaa

Nerds only read cyber / sf / computer books?

[seyed]

This isn't intended as flamebait but I was curious to know why don't have any other types of books reviewed? I mean I'd particularly like to see reviews of science books for non-sciencetists.

For example, Alice in Quantum Land or a A brief history of time should be required reading IMHO.

Re:Nerds only read cyber / sf / computer books?

[Industrial Disease]

Check out The Science of Discworld . Besides, I thought everybody only bought Brief History to look impressive on their coffee tables.

Pfft, don't tell us...

[ch-chuck]

you know who needs a commandment plastered on his office wall that says, "Thou shalt not embrace, extend and propriatize" (is that a word? it is now!) in order to enslave your customers with 'vendor lock in' and then call it 'progress' or 'standards plus'.

Boojum

Ethics of the Internet

[philsky]

How are our "cyber ethics" supposed to be? Shouldn't we just apply the ethics we use in our everyday life to our computer usage? I don't think we need a seperate state of ethics. Just apply what you believe in real life to computers. If you believe staling is wrong, then don't steal that spiffy javascript from someone elses computer. True, it's just a bunch of zeroes and ones, but it's stil his property. If you believe adultery is wrong, then don't surf porn..... you get the picture!

--philsky

"We're here and now, will we ever be again? For I have found, all that shimmers in this world is sure to fade" --Fuel, "shimmer"

Re:Ethics of the Internet

[Harri]

From what I gathered from the review (haven't seen the book) it seemed like they were saying that technology is changing the assumptions that morality is based on. The example being Thou Shalt Not Steal, based on an assumption that stealing deprives others of their possessions and is thus wrong. We have to consider whether or not the change in the validity of the assumption changes the validity of the rule.

I think it was incredibly brave of someone representing the C of E to put forward such a view: Christianity (a bit like American law) is built on old foundations, and it is easy to worry that everything we ever trusted to will fall in a heap if these foundations are found to be no longer sensible.

It's About Time

[delirium_9]

I for one am looking forward to a good book of this type. IMHO too many people take the open nature of the net as an excuse to say/do whatever they want without though of consequences. If the book is anything like the review says it is, then it should become a teaching aid to anyone who wants to use a computer (although perhaps the sections dealing with a particular faith group can be editied out).

It could be a Hive Queen and Hegemon for the internet, a very cool thing.

The Church: protector of freedom and progress :-)

[RNG]

While I don't doubt the fact that this book raises a number of good/valid points, the source (Church of England) makes it (in my eyes) highly suspect. I don't want to get into another Church vs. Religion debate, but generally it seems the organized religion is generally more interested in controlling (some might even say censoring) information rather than promoting the freedom of ideas.

I'm sure that from their relative point of view their points are valid and important, but chances are that once you get past the obvious (technology makes distances 'shrink', etc.), their fundamental premises will be very different from my own; something I frequently encounter when reading arguments from many groups who adhere to a less libertarian point of view than I do.

This is not to say that this book is automatically bad because it stems from the CoE, but even if I would read it, I would read it with the following thoughts in the back of my mind: "What do they want? How do they want to use the medium (internet) to their advantage? What do they see as a threat and how does all of this influence their views?" Whatever you do, consider the source of your information and the biases (sp?) this (source) introduces. This of course doesn't only apply to religion and politics but to just about anything else as well.

I find this sort of thing fascinating

[jd]

The Church of England has often accused of being irrelevent or even athiest (York Cathedral, and the former Archbishop of Durham spring to mind).

However, this seems to be a genuine attempt to say something useful and constructive. It's only my opinion, but I hope EVERY Slashdot reader, regardless of personal belief system (including agnostic or athiest) recognises the positive side of trying to be constructive, regardless of the source.

There is the question of whether the Church should "interfere" with the State/Internet/Corporations. However, both the Jewish and Christian faiths have done nothing BUT interfere, since their respective foundations. (So have many others.) Sometimes that interference has been one of trying to seperate two warring sides, othertimes it's giving someone an often well-deserved piece of their mind.

I honestly can't see the Biblical character of Jesus ignoring the Internet, and saying "I can't go there. It's full of... GEEKS!" IMHO, he's more likely to preach tolerence on BOTH sides, and encourage co-operation, rather than antagonism.

In short, faith can be a friend of "Open Source", "geeks" and net denziens. There is nothing inherently contradictory about that. It doesn't have to be, either. Plenty of coders have no faith in anything. It's just not mutually exclusive.

Re:I find this sort of thing fascinating

[Otter]

There is the question of whether the Church should "interfere" with the State/Internet/Corporations. However, both the Jewish and Christian faiths have done nothing BUT interfere, since their respective foundations.

I don't understand your use of the word "interfere". I don't see why people should be reluctant to speak or vote according to what they think is right, simply because those thoughts have been shaped by religion. As a someone pointed out in another post, not doing that is hypocritical.

Many Americans, mostly but not always liberals, have the misconception that separation between church and state means that religious views must not figure into voting or political discourse. Although that misconception always seems to vanish when a religious figure supports their views...

Re:I find this sort of thing fascinating

[Andrej Marjan]

Either you missed it, or you are choosing to ignore the historical context of jd's post. Perhaps I can help you understand a bit better where the profound mistrust of organized religion stems from.

Consider just these aspects of Christianity:

• The Crusades. A side-effect of the crusades was the sacking of Constantinople by Western Europeans and the general weakening of Byzantium to the point where it was easy pickings for the Turks. Actually, the whole ill-advised enterprise was a direct result of Church "interference" in political matters.
• WWII. The Roman Catholic Church was directly responsible for the smuggling out of countless fascists of all stripes (look up the "rat lines" for more information). I don't think this point really needs any further comment.

Look, historically, at what integration between church and state brought us: the inquisition, church-supported feudalism (and attendant serfdom), slavery and warfare, assorted supremacist movements.

Here's where the distrust comes in: the Church sets itself up as the ultimate arbiter of morality: they are the gateway to God. The Church then goes out and says "Yes, the nobles have a right to abuse, rape, kill their serfs. Yes, the rich have a right to own the poor." Or the Church goes out and does those things directly.

Well, since the Church sanctioned all those horrible things, they must be OK! God must approve!

That is why so many people, especially people who have historically been on the receiving end, distrust the Church. The Church is a political institution like any other; in fact the Church has hardly ever been this politically inactive.
--

Re:I find this sort of thing fascinating

[Otter]

I don't deny these things, although I'd point out that non-religious outlooks have contributed plenty of misery to the world, as well. In fact, the 20th century has seen non-religious movements surge into a huge lead on that front.

But that's not the point. The original post was asserting that citizens using a religious framework to help form their views are "interfering". I find that absurd. If I support anti-spam legislation because my religion has taught me that theft of services is wrong, should I have to take a back seat to someone who holds an identical view because his atheist moral code says the same thing?

Re:I find this sort of thing fascinating

[Andrej Marjan]

I just came back from walking my dog to find this. Nothing like ice rain to give you perspective. :)

I reread the original post, and I think this is a difference in interpretation. I think this part is in contention:

There is the question of whether the Church should "interfere" with the State/Internet/Corporations. However, both the Jewish and Christian faiths have done nothing BUT interfere, since their respective foundations.

I think the reference is to religious institutions ("the Church", "the ... faiths"). If I'm not mistaken, you think it refers to the individual people who make up the faith.
--

Re:I find this sort of thing fascinating

[techwatcher]

I gather you are American, or at least not English. Let me explain why "Church" and "State" were separated in the colonies by those leaving England, and what "established religion" really means.

This will probably shock you, but having a national religion (i.e., the Church of England) meant, until very recently, that all residents of a parish were taxed to support the official (i.e., established) church -- that is, the Church of England, or Anglican Church (what Americans call "Episcopal" -- though that word doesn't appear in its actual title).

When the colonists ordered a separation of Church and State for freedom of religion, they merely meant that each man (alas, it was men only) should be free to support his own chosen organized religious institution, rather than be forced to pay for a specific church by the State. The current American understanding of the concept is grotesquely expanded: We are free to believe whatever we like, but not to propose our beliefs be adopted, or follow through on them with action, in public!

Really, they only had an economic freedom in mind -- and isn't that what we all wish when we object to a so-called "moral majority" spending to enforce its "morals" or "family values" on the rest of us?

Yet another...

[Evangelion]

Another review at ship-of-fools.com.

Re:Source of Title

[moscow]

As this item from the BBC states, the title is "updated" from and 18th century carol title "Christians Awake!".

Re:The Church: protector of freedom and progress :

[stienman]

I would read it with the following thoughts in the back of my mind: "What do they want? How do they want to use the medium (internet) to their advantage? What do they see as a threat and how does all of this influence their views?" Whatever you do, consider the source of your information and the biases (sp?) this (source) introduces.

Hey, here's an idea, instead of reading a book (any book) just to try and find the author's motives, how about you read a book in order to learn? It's given that you might not find anything of use in a particular book, but even the book which represents the antithesis of your life/values/morals very likely has a nugget or two of wisdom which is useful to you, and could be applied to your life/values/morals without changing any of them..

This is not to say that you should accept ideas blindly, but you are closing your mind when you look at a book through your own filter. Pretty soon your filter becomes as censorous (ie, traitorous censor) as those censors you despise.

-Adam

Employee Review:
This employee is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.

Disknowledgeable messages

[Da Penguin]

This is a problem with the book reviews.

You should send in comments if you know something of the book or are responding to someone.
Don't just get into the message craze because you like it and/or want karma.

Good book. However I never read it so I won't say anything.

What Bill Gates would say...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't care about social ramifications, ethical or moral issues. I care only about power, wealth, and control. Er.. I mean, we are not a monopoly. We embrace competition."

How is surfing porn adultery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Waaaaay off topic I know, but I don't quite see the conection.

Sure there's the covet part ("heavy on the Covet Father...") But looking and another person (or photo, or Real Video) doesn't constitute cheating on a partner.

I've heard of quite a few couple who actually use porn to increase their *manogamous* love lives.

A better take on the Internet and the Church

[Royster]

This book has been rightfully lambasted as being long on cyberjargon and short on content. A response to this book was prepared by Dr. Brian Reid, one of the designers of Altavista and long a presence behind the scenes of the Internet. He is one of the founders of The Society of Archbishop Justus a non-profit organization which maintains the anglican.org domain in trust for the world's Anglicans. Their excellent site, Anglicans Online is a weekly must read for Anglicans.

His response to Cybernauts Awake!, The Church and the Internet, while written for a non-technical audience, is definately worth a read.

After having personally participated in a large, worldwide Anglican mailing list for several years and running my own list for Clergy Spouses, I know that the Anglican Church is alive and well on the Internet.

Re:A better take on the Internet and the Church

[orcmid]

I took the opportunity to follow the useful links here on what Brian Reid is up to these days and also look through the tract on The Church and the Internet (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/tracts/nc/). I found this an useful document. What I didn't find was any mention of Cybernauts Awake! It appears to me that the tract is written to stand on its own, to provide useful links to more information, and to invite people to consider their role and, as applicable, the relationship of their expression of spirituality in the context of the Internet. It may be that this tract resonates better with some techies, but I would not cast it as a response to Cybernatus Awake! nor do I have any sense of dispute in following the recommended links. Contribution yes, dispute no. -- Dennis E. Hamilton

Re:A better take on the Internet and the Church

[Royster]

I looked for but was unable to locate a copy of the press release that accompanied the release of the tract. It was intended as a response to that document, but it certainly stands on it's own.

Re:The Church: protector of freedom and progress :

[Paradox !-)]

I would read it with the following thoughts in the back of my mind: "What do they want? How do they want to use the medium (internet) to their advantage? What do they see as a threat and how does all of this influence their views?"

As you said, this is true for anything and everything you read online. There's always a PoV, even if that point of view is to try to be as objective as possible (which so many /.'ers would have each other believe of themselves ;-).

Personally, I find it very refreshing to see a church taking on this topic. Churches have a wonderful history of considering the implications of things (even as they have a terrible history of understanding the things themselves). Far too often, IMHO, the promoters and protectors of change do everything they can to minimize the implications and harm of that change while beefing up the supposed benefits. This can cause a backlash as those who expected to find gold only find hard work at the end of the miracle road. (See: Russia, Market Capitalism)

I know that the Internet scares the bejeezus out of my dad, who is an old-school telco-head. And that's because it has radically altered the industry he spent 20 years learning. All his knowledge becomes just this side of useless. That's terrifying, but those at the vanguard of the revolution usually don't consider that. Churches do. Books and views like this help us on the up side of change understand and help those on the down side by saying we have a moral obligation to consider the people we may otherwise forget.

Furthermore, you KNOW where a church is coming from. Churches generally come out and admit that they're speaking from their own Point of View. That's the very nature of an impermatur or condemnation. It establishes an anchor position on the moral/social axis, so people can take their bearings and say "I am on x side of the issue as compared to the church." It helps set up a common point of reference. These things are really important when trying to have a dialog (or multilog ;-) about the changes being brought about by the extension of communication and information across the world. It brings the discussion of these changes from the realm of the geek to the realm of the everyman by putting them into the common language of good, evil, right and wrong.

From that point, it's up to us to argue the merits of these changes and do our best to ameliorate the costs. It is no longer enough to say "you're a newbie/old media/bellhead/boomer; you wouldn't understand."

Just MHO...sorry about the rant. ;-)

Actually, it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus himself said it. Looking at another woman with lust is the same as adultery.

God and Computers.

[skia]

I personally cannot get enough of people exploring the spiritual side of computing. I think a lot of this is created through the interaction of brilliant people with the inherent mystique of computers -- which is provided through the abstraction from calculations that they afford us (see: the Zen AI Koans). Other spirituality can come through shared vocabulary and experience. Take, for example, the story of Magic|More Magic, or the use of the term ``Karma'' to describe your posting value here on /.

Donald Knuth has also had a profound impact on spiritual side of computing and programming. Programming wouldn't be what it is today without him, and he has always kept the ``Art'' of programming foremost in his mind, in front of the ``technique''.

He gave a lecture series entitled God and Computers at MIT from 6/10/99 to 17/11/99. Dr. Dobbs is carrying the Real Audio version of it on their technetcast site. Definitely worth a listen!

--

Guess I'd Better Gauge Out My Eyes Then....

[Anonymous Coward]

... oh wait. I'm an athiest.

**quickly putting down fork***

Brief History - badge of intelligence?

[seyed]

Yeah, it seems that way. Personally, I can't say I understood everything in the book (or anything much in the Black hole chapter).

Re:Brief History - badge of intelligence?

[techwatcher]

It's been a few years -- omigod, about 12! -- since I read it, but what I remember most is that in a very early chapter, he decided to "beg the question" -- the most important questions, I mean. The ones about facts appearing to have implications beyond the physical world.

Basically, he said, "Well, it may look as if extremely rare events had to come together in order for the universe to be inhabitable, but let's ignore this and look for another explanation." When I reached the end of the book, I realized he didn't actually have another explanation.

I didn't like that! Here I dutifully plowed through all those possible theories (like string theory) without any evidence for them, only to discover he wasn't proposing a complete explanation at all. So why did he write it?

Internet v. Religion

[Kid Zero]

I always have hated debates like this.

We are all people who do not "live on the net".
I cannot pull up a bunch of data and sit on it.
I sit in my chair in my house and type on my keyboard. The ideas I type go to some computer system somewhere else in the world, so everyone who connects to the same system I do can see it.
My ideas, thoughts and ethics go with me. They are evident in my actions.

If you think being on the 'Net is letting you "be someone else" you are wrong, you are still the same person. Think about that.

God is dead

[xmedar]

This is not an attempt at flamebait before you start marking me down. Organised religion has been dying as more of the world / universe has been explained by science, chipping away constantly at the foundations of God(s). The Church wants to survive and so it attempting to make what it is saying more relevant by setting itself up as an arbitar of what is a GOOD THING(TM) and what is a BAD THING(TM), this is an agenda for themselves, not what is best for the future of us all.

Re:God is dead

[Dracula]

I belive that statistics would dissagree with you. For example look at the upsurge in organised religion in China.

Re:God is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

...greatly exaggerated!

An increasing amount of scientists are finding
that new discoveries lead them to suspect that
the universe WAS designed after all. So many
things are just so... RIGHT!

Here on Earth, things could so easily be so much
worse, but all the conditions are just so perfect
for us. What a pity we're hellbent on ****ing it
all up...

Re:God is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, if "an increasing amount of scientists are finding that new discoveries lead them to suspect that the universe WAS designed after all", you should be able to name at least three of them that have published such findings in a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal. By "mainstream", I'm talking about actual scientific journals whose titles are not something like The Jesus Journal or the Fundamentalist Chronicle of Heathen Butchery. What are all of these discoveries that you mention? And how are they convincing honest scientists who are free from preconceived extreme religious biases that the universe was poofed into existence by any sort of almighty deity, let alone the invisible space pixie that the christians worship?

Yes, yes, I know .. the scientific peer review process is an affront to God and those who practice it will pay for it in the afterlife. But you have only made a claim here. If you want to be taken seriously, show us who these scientists are, show us these things that they have discovered, and show us their suspicions in the mainstream scientific media. Go on, don't be afraid.

Re:God is dead

[xmedar]

Yes there has been an upsurge in China and the former Eastern Bloc countries, they havent had the decades of open scientific debate and all the books that we have over here to help explain the science to the masses, I would suspect that A Brief History of Time has sold far far less in those countries than in the Western world. Just look at the religious and ethnic hatred in Bosnia, they have been 50 years behind, hopefully this will change soon so we can all live nice peaceful lives.

Internet 98 Companion now With GuiltBooks Pro

[Rares Marian]

Yay now the internet is no longer virtual. I can experience reality in the privacy of my own home to the fullest extent and we no longer need John Calvin's Big Brother beause we can feel shame as soon as the computer says: "Thou shalt not do that nor go there, but I shall not prevent thee for it is the will of God."

Man what a beautiful world.

Re:Not "York Cathedral"

[Matts]

As someone raised in York, I have to correct you - it's York Minster.

Personally I don't particularly view it as "interfering" (I know that's not the gist of what you're saying, but you do mention it as interfering). The Church has as much right to free speech on this and all other matters as anyone else. Sometimes they do interfere, and cross what I consider boundaries. I don't consider this one of those boundaries.

Does it Answer the Important Questions?

[Ralph Bearpark]

• Should I surf/online-shop on the Sabbath?
  
• Are spammers going to hell?
  
• Are internet marriages recognised by CofE?
  
• Is pulling the plug on an AI machine breaking the 6th commandment?
  
• Is Bill Gates breaking the other 9?
  
• Is it possible to drive the evil spirits out of Slashdot?
  
• Where do programs go when they die?
  
• Is there life after BSoD?
  
• Does the CoE recognise the CoSub-Genius (and if Microsoft created Bob, does this make Bill Gates God?)
  
• Any more ... ?
  

Regards, Ralph

Re:Does it Answer the Important Questions?

[cpt kangarooski]

• No
• Presumably (unless they're proof we're already in hell ;)
• Got me
• Depends on circumstances
• Quite a few, I'm sure
• Yes, but before that the bgcolor will turn pea soup green
• Silicon Heaven
• Yes. We call it Unix. ;)
• That's a scary thought

Re:Does it Answer the Important Questions?

[Ralph Bearpark]

OK, let's deal with the most important of these points: Shopping. If it's not OK for me to go online shopping on the Sabbath, is it OK for me to allow my software shopping agent to be active on the Sabbath?

Regards, Ralph.

Re:Does it Answer the Important Questions?

[cpt kangarooski]

That's actually fairly tough. I would guess that the answer is no, it's not ok. But I Am Not A Talmudic Scholar ;)

Re:The Church: protector of freedom and progress

[westexe]

I can understand where you're coming from (haven't you heard that often enough?) but the Church of England is pretty good about allowing debate and rational thinking.

Its reputation for having a few crackpots is due to the fact that they do encourage people to think about their faith, and some of them put forward some pretty odd ideas as they consider their faith.

This is because we believe that our faith is true, and can stand up to criticism, discussion, and debate.

At the central level, it is becoming pretty good at understanding technology and the effects on society and the way we worship (DTPed service sheets, for example), and at communicating that to the parishes.

Re:Is logical reasoning dead too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will), but wasn't religion originally created for the sole purpose of explaining the unexplainable? It seems to me that this methodology is moving to the forefront...

In this day and age, there is often a cynicism about religion because "science will explain everything." Well, I would agree, however, it also seems that we have reached a "scientific block" where we have explained what we can, and what's left is beyond our **current** understanding.

So, what to do? Well, one can accept the fact that we just don't know right now, or one could rekindle their religious beliefs. So saying that religion is making a comeback is not exactly accurate.

Cultural and social factors play a major role, as does the scientific understanding of the general populous. If understanding is low, well, religion is easy to push on the masses. But, it can be as easy (if not easier) to do the same when understanding is high, but phenomena remain that seem unexplainable (and somehow attributable to a divine being).

I suggest checking out http://www.csicop.org. I don't think they discuss this exact topic, but there are many related articles on logic and reasoning, along with thoughful analysis of UFOs, pyschics, etc. An article I read discussed UFO "researchers" claiming that they have proved the existence of UFOs. Here's how their logic goes (roughly):

• [See an unidentified flying object]
• Research possible explanations of the object.
• Declare that such an object cannot be identified
• Claim that because it cannot be indentified, it must not be of earthly origin.
• Proceed to show (by this "indisputable" evidence) that the object (most likely now designated a "craft") is of alien origin, and controlled by intelligent alien life.

In the same way, you cannot logically claim that the universe must have been created by some divine being just because you have no other means of explaining it.

IMO, this is what leads to suppression of learning... assuming something is "beyond" human understanding and then arbitrarily making up explanations that cannot be proven (I guess you could never prove they couldn't be proven, because they're beyond understanding!).

- doorguy
doorguy@gamebox.**YOINK**net

Is technology beyond your imagination really possible?

Maybe a J.S. Bach reference, too?

[Requiem]

The first thing that came to mind for me when I saw the title was "Sleepers, Awake.", a piece by J.S. Bach.

Jesus and Packet Sniffers

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus himself said it. Looking at another woman with lust is the same as adultery.

So does Jesus use packet sniffers to keep track of who is looking at porn? Or does He just know?

If I find out that my ISP is shipping crates full of access logs to Rome, I'm gonna shit. :-)

Re:The Church: protector of freedom and progress :

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because "The Church" are Cathedral builders. If you want open and free religion come on down to the Bazaar and hear George Fox speachify.

Conversational space and technology non-neutrality

[Frater 219]

"Technology has the power to change relationships between people. It is not neutral."

So, if it's not neutral, is it good or evil? Inquiring Slashdotters want to know!

I believe that the kind of 'neutrality' being referred to in this sense doesn't directly relate to goodness or evil (and yes, I caught the AD&D reference...). What's meant rather is that because our communications technologies alter the shape of the 'space' (in the mathematical sense) in which we engage in relationships with others, they are not 'neutral' to the forms of relations we have.

Take, for instance, the telephone. When the telephone was new, phone calls were rare and momentous, and the fact that someone is calling you was a very important thing to know. For this reason, phones were equipped with loud bells which could interrupt 'real-world' conversations to draw attention to the phone appliance itself.

Phone conversations became more commonplace, and people began to use the telephone to hold conversations of lesser importance. However, the interrupting nature of the ringing phone did not go away -- and so we now live in a world where many people will postpone or cut off a real-world conversation when the phone rings, even if the phone conversation is of less importance than the real-world one. Thus, the phone technology has biased the 'conversational space' away from the less-interrupting mode of average, polite, real-world conversations and towards the more-interrupting mode of telephone conversations. Rather than deciding which of two conversations to engage in on the basis of their importance or on the basis of 'first come, first serve', people tend to favor with their time the phone conversation over the real-world one. The telephone also increased the level of interruption through which people must work.

(Another way of saying the same thing is that regardless of the content of the conversations, people give telephone conversations disproportionately more attention because they come in at a higher level of interruption.)

This is by far not the only example. Different communications media all have different 'biases'. Consider, for instance, the difference between typed and spoken conversations. In writing -- be it in a letter, email, Slashdot post, or IRC -- you cannot hear people's tone of voice or see their facial expressions, and thus emotional content is more difficult to convey accurately. (One can say "I am angry!", for instance, in many ways, but it lacks the immediacy and the subconscious mammalian signaling present in a stern look and a harsh voice. Worse yet, your reader may read emotions into your text which are not there, based on their own emotions; flamers tend to see perfectly reasonable posts as being flames themselves.) Thus written media are biased towards emotionally detached content, while spoken ones are in a sense biased against it (because the 'distractions' of emotional signaling cannot be eliminated).

That is the non-neutrality of communications technologies.

Re:(Does it) ...No Bill would not be god

[Logos]

It would make him a meta-god, or possibly a meta-meta god:

Bill created M$
M$ created Bob
Bob created slack...

Or maybe Bob begat Bob
Or Eris Begat Bill to begat Bob.

What was I saying, I begat err forget :)

sorry very silly, but I am very stressed.

But just so this is isn't totally off topic, Internet morality is no more dependant on the medium than thoughts on paper--else my really dumb comments above become moral if the internet is deemed moral, and are categorically immoral if the technology itself needs assesed for morality and fails (and so my comments become dumb, silly, off-topic, AND immoral).

Oh well back to this dumb program.

Why the Companies shouldn't decide these things

[philg]

Just some random musings....

I recommend anyone who hasn't go to the online site and browse the book. It's really raising a lot of interesting issues, and treating them from the standpoint you never hear. That is to say, it's not asking what's fair, but what's right.

• Corporate email. Many people only have Internet access through their job, and from a fairness standpoint, they are using their employer's resources to access the Internet, so it is fair that the employer should be able to monitor (and perhaps log) that information.

  But is it the right thing to do? Like I said, many people may not have Internet access any other way, and the activities offered on the Internet are so diverse that in much of it, it is not unreasonable to want a little privacy. Should the employers knowingly limit their employee's only access to this world?

  Perhaps. Maybe some of the things the employee is looking at (like pornography) give them legitimate liability concerns, and may offend other employees. But what about my imaginary daughter's email from college? Or my credit card number, when ordering clothes online? And is it okay to monitor traffic so we can tell the difference between what's "okay" and what isn't?

• Personal information in the public domain. Is it really right to collect everything about me that's in the public domain, then give it to someone I don't know so they can try to sell me something? It's certainly legal, and even fair, inasmuch as that information, in fragmented form, is out there anyway. But is its collection and dissemination an act with moral or ethical overtones?

• The crown jewel -- is intellectual property even a valid ethical concept? What about its current implementation? Think, for a moment, only about what is considered legal under our IP laws -- things like the eToys/eToy lawsuit mentioned here a while back, or the periodic extension of the time during which a copyright can be valid, which seems to happen every time a major corporation's grip on older IP threatens to expire. Is this really the way to treat ideas and concepts that all of society can benefit from?

Corporations are very often embroiled in the discussion of "fairness" (usually to make sure they are being treated fairly), but morality transcends this. In fact, it has largely been moral and ethical concerns that gave rise to Free Software -- just because I have the right to make my code non-free doesn't mean I should.

Corporations are not necessarily moral or ethical bodies. In fact, the overarching goal of publicly-traded companies -- to please the shareholders with maximum profits -- seems to conflict with morality and ethics on several levels.

However, as companies come online, they seem to be erecting barriers to entry -- barriers surmountable, generally, only by other companies. If they are allowed to succeed in this, the future of the Internet (IMO) will not be determined with moral considerations in mind, and those of us with moral concerns will have to do things the dirty old way we do now -- forcing corporations to do the right thing for the wrong reason.

These are just my thoughts, of course. But reading a document like the book being reviewed really points out to me what a golden opportunity we have to inject ethical considerations into the very way the Internet works. It would be a shame to waste it with inaction.

phil

Re:Why the Companies shouldn't decide these things

[xmedar]

Good points, and I will stick to IP. It is interesting to note that the Encyclopædia Britannica has gone online and the Oxford English Disctionary goes online for all next year, IP is becoming less important as the means to deliver, disemminate and manipulate it. Those who think they have some kind of protection through patents will find that there is always a way round it, just like the Net routes around damage so do the new ebusinesses route around bad IP laws. If you want to survive you must constantly out innovate the competition, if not, you're a Dodo.

Oops! Conclusion

[Andrej Marjan]

I hit the wrong button. Here's where all this leads:

Admittedly there is much hypocrisy. On all sides. Undoubtedly there is a knee-jerk anti-religious reaction borne of ignorance (but there's also a knee-jerk anti-secular reaction by countless religious leaders and their followers).

But, though many people today don't know why this anti-religious sentiment originated (and that forgetting in itself is nothing new), there is a legitimate historical reason for it. It's the same reaction that causes the libertarians to cry out against Government, and assorted groups to cry out against corporations: any institution that becomes large and powerful enough becomes a defacto government that serves itself.

I personally have no comment in this particular booklet, other than to say that it seems like just another church publication addressing some aspect of a believer's life (the Russian Orthodox church, for instance, has countless such publications).
--

Re:The Church: protector of freedom and progress :

[xmedar]

...I know that the Internet scares the bejeezus out of my dad, who is an old-school telco-head...

Well over here in the UK telco costs for us are high, per minute charging for calls, ADSL not out of the trial stage, and look at how we are loosing to the North Americans, fear is keeping them back and so keeping the rest of the country back so the best people are leaving. So would you rather be at the bottom of the heap and have the older generation feel more comfortable about themselves, or would you like to be at the front of the pack, forging the future?

Re:Conversational space and technology non-neutral

[xmedar]

Just a little caveat for you, with caller ID, and the ability to switch off phones, especially mobiles, people are making more complex choices about who they speak to and when, so they are not so much interupt driven (IRQs anyone??), maybe it would make a good thesis for some sociologist, anyone interested?

Re:Society of Archbishop Justus

[Holerith]

This is slightly off topic but I felt a need to comment given Dr. Reid's quoted credentials.

While the SoAJ has done a good job with the site, and the administration of a domain is not a trivial task, they have as yet not opened this non-profit organization, supposedly for the benefit of the Church and its followers, to membership beyond the founders.

The page says that they will do so as soon as the Charter etc. is formalized. Well they have been in existance for 4 years and are a registered non-profit. That means they had to have a formal charter before they could be registered.

Maybe it is my own cynicism and I do them an injustice, but I would think that they should have all such considerations well formalized long before now, as well as offering membership to those interested in the goals of the organization. Regardless of the forum it provides the Church and its followers, as it stands it looks more like a private club than an organization for providing a charitable service.

Is good design a moral issue?

[drox]

Coders are asked to 'love your user as yourself', to consider good design a moral issue....

Those certainly sound like decent suggestions on the surface, but are they? And are the two suggestions contradictory?

Good design can be rather subjective. One user's favorite navigation tool is painful for another to use. Just as in art - people never seem to agree on what good art is. But even art lovers can find more to agree on than users. They may disagree about whether a painting is good art, but both would probably prefer to put the painting on the wall (good design) rather than on the floor, where people would have to step carefully to avoid tripping over it (bad design). But users can't even seem to agree on what constitutes good design, other than maybe "the program should not crash."

And "love thy user as thyself" might make for some really user-hostile programs. Should programmers follow the golden rule, and treat users as they (the programmers) would like to be treated? Just because lots of programmers like command lines does not mean that ordinary users will. Programmers (and many experienced users) don't usually like to be spoon-fed their instructions. Figuring them out for oneself is fun! But not for everyone. Some people will want - and need - a lot of hand-holding.

I would certainly agree that it's immoral to deliberately code a program poorly, but beyond that it's hard to pin down the morality of bad code. Is there room for honest mistakes? Even if one is sincerely trying? What if there's a deadline, and quick-n-dirty is the order of the day?

Re:Is good design a moral issue?

[xmedar]

Maybe we should add a new commandment :-

"Thou shalt not build a program that BSoDs or contains any other Showstopper"

Re:Society of Archbishop Justus

[Royster]

Regardless of the forum it provides the Church and its followers, as it stands it looks more like a private club than an organization for providing a charitable service.

It is my understanding that progress on 501(C)3 status has been made in recent months. The Society operates entirely with volunteers and given the effort that goes into updating the Anglicans Online site weekly, quite a lot does gt accomplished. I myself have a small role in the maintenance of a web site hosted by the Society. They are certainly providing a service to the Church with their expenses being provided entirely by the founders. The additional expences of the legal help necessary to secure tax-exempt status only take away from the services they are providing.

Re:God is dead - no monopoly on open debate

[artdodge]

they havent had the decades of open scientific debate and all the books that we have over here to help explain the science to the masses

There is nothing contradictory about open scientific debate and Christianity. And there is nothing inherently cohesive between scientific naturalism and open debate.

It has been my experince that fervent atheists tend to refuse some topics of debate with a zeal that made the Inquisitors look polite. I'm thinking specifically here of questions of epistemology. Many people who would propose to argue that science has rendered faith irrelevant are unwilling to discuss the problem of the meaning and limits of knowledge. I blame our "enlightened" educational system for treating scientific naturalism as fact rather than chosen assumption, and our high schools and universities for failing to give scientists a proper grounding in history and philosophy with which they can reasonably speak to these questions.

Not to say that I've never met a scientific atheist who could debate this stuff intelligently, but they have been (much to my disappointment) few and far between.

Re:Conversational space and technology non-neutral

[techwatcher]

You are quite right about the way telephones interrupt personal (or f2f) conversation, but I can't agree with your position on written communication. Sociologists/psychologists know that most people are "blocked" in their ability to express varying emotions -- i.e., many persons always look as if they are locked into a certain emotion, no matter what they are feeling. Some of us are also disabled in ways that make it hard for others to "read" us. At the same time, some of us are incapable of reading emotion.

Many years ago I worked (in NYC) at a global company, headquartered in Toronto, with a very flat structure -- everyone had access to what was in effect a private network (since purchased by a large news organization for that network). What immediately struck me was how well I came to know certain persons having never met them, just from their writing! After I left the company, I met two of these "friends" (and they met me) and we were all amazed at how much we were just as we had imagined.

It is true that we can misunderstand one another online. But more often (because there is just more of it) this happens offline, too. Irony, for example, is usually misinterpreted by young people, or those who are not terribly intelligent.

One final point: if you want to increase intimacy in a relationship, or just learn more about another person, go for written communications over telephoned ones every time. The cues that come with "spoken" conversation are apparently far less important than the media effect of committing to print! (Perhaps we tend not to bother writing something that doesn't matter to us, whereas phone conversation usually is dominated by the trivial?)

Um, no, not actually...

[techwatcher]

Reading without the filter of our own interests is (I would have said "obviously") impossible. Further, most persons learn a lot more from a book or any writing in which they are actively engaged, interrogating it in light of what interests them. In fact, this is (or used to be?) a technique taught to improve reading comprehension!

The virtue of being able to look at something with one's own interests in mind, yet remaining open-minded about it, is called "detachment" (just thought I'd pass that along, seeing as we're supposedly talking of morality and virtue (-8 .)

Better, More Current Content

[ajrez]

Check http://www.thiemeworks.com for more constant and up to date view on the crossconnect between human spirituality and technology.

-aj.

Internet spiritual implications != irrelevant.

[_outcat_]

Some here are saying that there are no more spiritual implications about the Internet than a tool. You use the tool; big deal. No questions asked.

Perhaps one could go farther than that and describe the tool as, say, a wrench. Use it to fasten bolts, it's OK. Use it to beat someone's brains out, it's not.

I am a Christian, and spiritual implications and the Internet go farther than just that.
Say you're sitting in a chatroom or IRC. That's like using the wrench to fasten bolts: you're using the tool for its purpose.

Say a newbie enters the channel. Circumstances are right for you to social engineer a credit card number out of the newbie. That's like using the wrench to whack someone over the head: you're using the tool for a destructive, unintended purpose; and whether you believe in Christ or not, you probably think there's SOMETHING morally wrong with walking up to an innocent bystander and forcibly placing their brains on the sidewalk.

Say you forego the social engineering and you find out that the newbie works for a specific division of Microsoft; you then download an illegal copy of software from said division. IMHO, that would be like using the wrench to pry open the guy's safe; he himself doesn't really suffer, but his wallet feels the consequences. There may be people trying to make a living off some of this stuff. OK, Microsoft is a bad example, because they get some pretty posh quarters. But I think you get the idea.

Of course, having one less sale isn't nearly as debilitating as having one's grey matter spread far and wide by a monkey wrench, but it does show that "thou shalt not steal" applies relevantly to both "real life" AND whatever-defines-the-Internet-as-a-culture.

As long as the Internet deals with people, people will try to take advantage of whatever they can. And people have been doing this since Genesis 3, when Adam and Eve decided to listen to a serpent.

Listen, this may be flamebait to some of you, but we all know that legislation and testing and control don't make things better. Just look at Voices from the Hellmouth--A good part of a culture (mostly geeks and loners) decides that everyone's out to get them (and the government may well be...yeeeesh!) and we get flames and Natalie Portman and grits. Disgusting, distasteful, and nobody's happy.

How can anyone expect to enforce order in a world that has thrown away absolutes?

Just my $.02.

Re:God is dead - no monopoly on open debate

[xmedar]

...There is nothing contradictory about open scientific debate and Christianity.....

Tell that to Galileo, a man who was persecuted by the Church for speaking the truth, religion is about control just like politics, maybe, one day, if we are lucky, we will be free.

Re:The Church: protector of freedom and progress :

[Gerv]

"What do they want? How do they want to use the medium (internet) to their advantage? What do they see as a threat and how does all of this influence their views?"

As a Christian, when I read things written by libertarians arguing for no gun control or whatever, I apply exactly the same criteria. ;-)

This of course doesn't only apply to religion and politics but to just about anything else as well.

So why bother making the point at all?

Gerv

Re:God is dead - no monopoly on open debate

[Dracula]

It has always seemed to me that it is politicians who control religion, not the reverse.
examples:

Henry VIII
Hitler
Mohamed
any of the Iotolas ( sp? )
any of the rulers of Rome.

This list does go back a bit, but then so does man's desire to subjugate his brother.
True no human is faultless, and religion is a human construct around a faith.
Politics is a human construct built around human weakness.
In both cases Individuals may be good or bad, but politicts is inherently more likely to be corrupt.
Hell, I'm begining to sound like an anarchist now.

Yes!

[xmedar]

...Hell, I'm begining to sound like an anarchist now....

Good I have turned another to the cause :)

Thanks for your replies, folks

[Anonymous Coward]

...but I tend to read a lot and only remember the
gist of what I've read without the specifics - so
I can't name names here!

It was in New Scientist sometime this year or last
that they made the point I was trying to get accross. If you make the effort to find out more
about life, and approach things with the innocent
wide-eyed awe of a child rather than with the
"adult" skeptical cynacism you may find
enlightenment.

I'm not trying to convert you, if you can't see
what's so blindingly obvious to so many of us
that's your problem.

Best wishes.