The contrast between philosophies in parts 1 and 2 feels like a difference between elitism and populism. There’s good to both! I’m using elitist to roughly mean experts and meritocracy, and populist to mean anyone’s opinion or creation is equally legitimate.
Experts obviously have their benefits. In the recent pandemic, Dr. Fauci didn’t have a perfect track record when it came to predictions or precautionary measures, but his medical degree and specialization in immunology vastly improved his ability to provide meaningful health advice. At an even more basic level, driving licenses are a form of meritocracy to only allow people with a certain level of confidence onto the road.
This system worked well for the early hackers. Only allowing entry based on aptitude or pre-existing skill helped them keep their social circle full of hacker rockstars. This kind of community is extremely powerful when it is self-improving. Look no further than code golfing for sport to see how effective this was; a company team would have struggled to achieve their results.
A more populist philosophy was employed by the hardware hackers. Populism is great because everyone can contribute their own voice and no philosophy is dominant. Modern software is an example of this: this tool is used for hardcore academic research, scripting of job tasks, exploring data relations, or even creating art. Everyone has their own goal and is free to pursue it.
While certain part 2 hackers had comparable levels of skill that would have put them on the same level as the original hackers, they were excited to turn the holy art into a commonplace for the common man. It didn’t matter what skills or aptitude someone possessed; anyone could benefit from computing. The real beauty was turning it loose to an excited public and seeing the diversity of uses for it, expected and otherwise.
It’s hard to take a stand on which philosophy is right without looking at context.
Technology adds context to this dichotomy. Some technologies clearly improve the state of the world for just about everyone; the polio vaccine is a good example of this. Some technologies are morally unjustifiable, like chemical weapons, that at best allow people to hold power through massive suffering. Most technologies are morally gray and depend on how they are used.
I would argue the computer falls into the last category, and would compare it closely with the printing press. Gutenberg’s invention allowed for cheap and easy dissemination of information. This helped Christianity spread farther throughout Europe, as well as allowing Christians to form their own opinions based on scripture instead of whatever opinions the local town priest held. Ideas of science and of the Renaissance also spread.
Computers seem similar. Instant and worldwide communication allow for massive sharing of information. Computers also allow for information creation in the form of programs that spat back useful knowledge. For both books and computers, they can be used to do great harm through lies and manipulation, but no one would go back to a world without these things.
Technologies for information sharing are morally neutral tools, and humans have a track record for using these tools mostly for good. Because of this, I believe the advantage falls to the populists here. Spread the technology to every corner of the globe! Accept that harm will come, but the good will more than make up for it. (“Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny” seems relevant here.)
The big question at the end of this is morals versus results. First off, spreading the Hacker Ethic is a noble thing to do if someone believes in it, but spreading an idea (to a wider audience) never perfectly preserves the original message. Ideas and philosophies change over time and person to person, and it would be foolish to think the Hacker Ethic would be immune to this. That being said, I think there’s a strong case for preserving ideals that are truly held even if it leads to less success.
There’s two pieces to this argument. The first is a probabilistic one. Preserving ideals are a certainty, while success comes in degrees and isn’t certain. If we set up this as a game theory grid, the strategy of choosing to preserve ideals would always end with the moral gain of keeping ideals while also having the potential gain of success. There’s a guaranteed gain. Choosing the strategy of abandoning ideals always has some moral loss, while potentially increasing the probability of success. There’s a guaranteed loss.
The second piece of the argument is that morals are what create success in the first place, at least in a cooperative environment (sharks are purely competitive, the strongest and meanest survive). An entrepreneur’s hard work and curiosity drive a company to be great. Trust and kindness among friends means people get help when they’re in a bad situation. The founding values of democracy are moral: equality in vote and political representation, personal freedoms, and respect for the political process. The number of democracies have grown over time, and democracies almost never go to war with other democracies. Pretty successful.
If you believe in an ethic, don’t abandon it without good reason.
