CLAL on Culture Archive
Welcome to CLAL on Culture where you will find the latest thoughts and reflections by CLAL faculty and associates on contemporary culture: high and low, material and ethereal, trendy and retro, Jewish and otherwise. Every other week you will find something new on this page.
To access the CLAL on Culture Archive, click here.
Viruses and the Evil Urge
By David Kraemer
Recently I received an urgent e-mail message from a friend,
informing me, with profound apologies, that she had unknowingly sent me a computer virus
with an earlier e-mail. She proceeded to
provide directions for eliminating the virus, telling me how to find the virus, with its
characteristic icons, and how to delete it—not just once (sending it to the recycle
bin), but twice (thus eliminating all possibility of re-awakening it). Having been the near victim of earlier virus scams
and hoaxes, I called her by phone and asked her how she knew these files were actually
viruses. She told me that she had gotten the
same message from another friend, and she was just passing along the information to people
on her address list. So I logged onto the
Norton Anti-Virus Web site, and soon discovered that this “virus” warning was,
in fact, a hoax, one that had people deleting important parts of a resident program. At the same time, I was provided with a means to
check for another “virus” (the KlezH worm), so I downloaded the necessary
programs and proceeded, for the next hour and a half, to take the necessary steps to
discover, in the end, that my computer was clean. No
harm done. Much time wasted. I then went to walk the dog.
As
I was out walking, much frustrated and disgusted at the time I had just wasted, I realized
that the “viruses” I had been searching out were not viruses at all! They were the intentional, malicious creations of
mean-spirited people who apparently thought it would be “fun” to mess up my
computer—and the computers of many others. What
was particularly galling to me was that these malicious programs offered their creators no
gain. They were not stealing something from
me (aside from my time and sanity, which they could not possess), nor were they gaining
access to information that might benefit them. On
the contrary, the only consequence of their designs was to create havoc for others, and
this, it seems, gives them pleasure. From
this I have learned something important about “human nature” and its
consequences for human societies.
In
the ‘80s and ‘90s, I was as quick as the next guy to dismiss the notion of a
“human nature.” It was all socially
constructed, I would say—though this was an academic orthodoxy concerning which I
always had my doubts. But my reflection on
the computer virus-plague leads me to conclude that, in one crucial respect, at least,
there is a human nature. Simply put, it is in the nature of humans—not
all humans, but always some humans—to do bad, to do evil, to do harm, to plague
others. This is a human quality that has long
been recognized, and the explanation for which has long been mythologized. The Jewish tradition calls it “yetzer hara,” not, as it is frequently
mistranslated, “the evil inclination,” but, more correctly, “the urge to do
evil.” And this is an urge to do evil for its own sake, not because the perpetrator will
benefit but because, kind of like Everest, the opportunity is there. And since the opportunity will always exist, there
will always be the virus programmer. We will
always be in the position of having to protect ourselves against ourselves.
The
fact that there will always be some humans who are pursuers of evil means that the sorts
of suspicion and distrust provoked by their presence in our midst will always be a part of
our social existence. Who are you? What do you want with me? What do you want from me? These
are the sorts of questions we shall never be free to neglect – not in the
face-to-face world nor in the cyber-world of e-mail, and virtual identities. Or if we do neglect these questions, we will live
with the consequences. Sure, if we build good
defenses we will be able to relax for a short while.
But the malicious programmer will surely find a way to subvert them. As quick and efficient as the virus update
programs might be, they can only, at best, react to the last virus even as someone
somewhere is busy working to invent yet another more virulent bug.
Does
the language I just used sound like the frequent observations and cautions regarding our
collective security following 9/11? Sure it
does. And, to me, the fact that we can use
similar language concerning our programming enemy (call him a cyber-terrorist) and our al
Qaeda enemy demands a sober recognition. As I
have already suggested, the programming enemy is an outgrowth of who we, collectively,
are. Some humans are mostly evil and all
humans are partly evil. This is the troubling
reality of the human animal, and it is inescapable. But
if the cyber-terrorist is of and like “us,” and if, as the language we have used
suggests, the cyber-terrorist is like the al Qaeda terrorist, then “we” are like
“them.” The “they” who
conspire against us and seek our harm—in part motivated by religious and
socio-political factors, but in part merely moved by their inclination to do evil—are
an extreme form of who we all are or might be. Perhaps,
if we remember this, we will better understand “them” and find a way across the
chasm that separates us and exposes us to such danger.
To view other articles by David Kraemer, click here.
To join the conversation at CLAL on Culture Talk, click here.
To access the CLAL on Culture Archive, click here.
To receive the CLAL on Culture column by email on a regular basis, complete the box below:
