Books centered on technology often struggle to maintain their relevance over time. They face the constant threat of obsolescence as companies emerge and decline, and as one trending product is superseded by another. However, last year, Gil Durán, the author of “Nerd Reich,” asserted that it was time to reinvigorate the legacy of Paulina Borsook, whom he claimed “saw it all very clearly and tried to warn us 25 years ago.” Subsequently, The New York Times noted that Borsook’s “Cyberselfish,” originally published in 2000, was gaining a new audience eager to comprehend the reasons behind the tech industry’s perceived moral decline.
Now, after being out of print for an extended period, “Cyberselfish” is set to be reissued in a new edition by Tin House. In a recent Zoom interview, Borsook explained that the book serves as “almost a travelogue” of her efforts to grasp what she describes as the techno-libertarian impact on Silicon Valley culture. “That’s a 12-year-old view of the world,” Borsook remarked, characterizing it as “a kind of basket of beliefs” that is “violently anti-regulation,” despite the reality that “no sector of society has benefited more and suffered less from the government than these individuals.” She elaborated, stating, “Even after the dot-com crash, that attitude was just there, percolating around, contaminating the aquifers. It was uncorrected, and it just spread out more and more.”
Borsook has yet to release a second book, revealing that after the initial publication of “Cyberselfish,” “no one was interested in anything I might have to say about anything, tech or not tech, forever after.” However, she began to observe a rise in the prices of used copies last year, alongside unexpected social media posts from individuals expressing the significance of her work, as well as inquiries from “European academics.” This renewed interest ultimately led to increased media coverage and the forthcoming Tin House edition, which includes a new introduction by Durán. Continue reading for our complete conversation, edited for brevity and clarity, in which Borsook addresses AI, the transformation of Silicon Valley over the past 25 years, and her advice for young individuals pursuing careers in technology.
Could you elaborate on how your interest in techno-libertarianism began, and how you recognized that there was a book to be written on this subject? My journey has always been somewhat inadvertent. I started engaging with tech circles, however we define them, in the early to mid-1980s in the Bay Area. I began to notice, particularly around the early 1990s, some rather peculiar, offhand comments made by certain individuals that I found perplexing. It is not in my nature to argue; I prefer to listen, and at that time, I lacked the terminology to describe it other than libertarian. However, it seemed quite odd to me because I had grown up in Pasadena, the home of the Caltech-JPL space program, where the parents of my peers belonged to a different STEM culture. Upon entering Silicon Valley, I initially thought, “Oh, this is just another STEM culture like the one I know.” The individuals at Caltech and JPL had a clear understanding of the government’s role in supporting them and were not inclined towards enlightened self-interest. They possessed a distinct personality type and did not self-aggrandize despite their significant contributions. I was merely listening and feeling confused. Even then, I recognized that no sector had benefited more and suffered less from the government than these individuals. So, why were they behaving this way?
To provide some context: My agent approached me shortly after I completed my MFA at Columbia and suggested, “You know, it’s quite challenging to get fiction published. Do you have a nonfiction book in you?” I responded, “Well, there’s this peculiar subculture I’ve been observing that I don’t quite understand, and whenever I encounter something I don’t grasp, I feel compelled to explore it.” This inquiry led me down the rabbit hole of examining and writing about this phenomenon, which I consider almost a travelogue, akin to “Black Lamb and Gray Falcon,” rather than a straightforward polemic. It’s more about capturing snapshots of the experience.
I inadvertently found myself in this realm, and I also felt a certain degree of narcissism, believing I was uniquely positioned to write about it, as no one else seemed to be paying attention, which was significant to me. I have not revisited all the other literature produced about the tech industry prior to “Cyberselfish.” However, I do recognize, for instance, in reading Steven Levy’s work, that there exists an alternative philosophy, a libertarian thread within Silicon Valley. Yet, no one had truly examined it under such scrutiny.
This observation holds true. Furthermore, much of the writing—particularly in the 1990s, and perhaps even later—was predominantly celebratory. It did not question, “Wait a minute, what’s happening here?” I recently heard John Markoff from The New York Times deliver a talk in which he made a statement I found compelling. He remarked, “Silicon Valley is a multicultural place.” By this, he did not refer to one’s country of origin but rather emphasized the diverse cultures present within it. He consistently focused on these countercultural elements. I am not suggesting that these aspects did not exist; I simply found myself more intrigued by another dimension. Therefore, these elements coexist in parallel; I do not believe they are in conflict.
It appears that you do not perceive the techno-libertarian aspect as emerging from the counterculture but rather as distinct cultures within Silicon Valley. One distinction I made in what I refer to as TDB, that damn book, is between Ravers and Gilders, with Gilders representing the social conservatives. I named them after George Gilder, a rather unappealing thought leader of the early 1990s, who was very conservative, reactionary, and backward-looking. Conversely, the Ravers, in homage to John Perry Barlow, embody a more culturally liberal ethos, celebrating drugs, sex, and rock and roll, and embracing events like Burning Man. This distinction remains relevant, as contemporary Silicon Valley still reflects this divide. There are Christian nationalists and conservative Catholics in leadership roles, alongside Burners and individuals engaging in interesting explorations of sexuality and drugs, as well as those involved in effective altruism and AI.
What, then, constitutes the countercultural aspect? Perhaps the emphasis on personal freedom is countercultural. Another peculiar point to highlight is that the San Francisco peninsula continues to vote blue. Ro Khanna serves as the congressman from that area. Thus, I am discussing culture rather than electoral politics, particularly concerning the leadership class, the tech overlords. It remains unclear to me how much the general workforce aligns with these views, although it is likely more than when I was previously acquainted with the dynamics there. Many individuals are drawn to work in crypto or AI without considering the broader political context. They tend to accept whatever is presented to them without much concern.
We can identify individuals in positions of power who hold these right-wing beliefs or are affiliated with the Trump administration. There exists another executive class that may not share identical beliefs but is comfortable coexisting with them. Additionally, the diversity you mentioned persists, with various communities and cultures coexisting beneath the surface. I have certainly spoken to individuals employed by someone like Elon Musk, and they express sentiments such as, “Yes, I don’t particularly admire this individual, but at this moment, I cannot afford to lose this job.” I believe this phenomenon is more prevalent now than in the past, as job security has diminished, leading people to think, “I have a job, I will hold onto it.” Alternatively, they may say, “I don’t agree with the beliefs being promoted, but my project is acceptable.” Such situations are not uncommon.
For those unfamiliar with the book, who may have a general awareness of the libertarian influence in Silicon Valley, could you elaborate on why techno-libertarianism is problematic, particularly for someone who believes that technology can be liberating and free us from the constraints of government bureaucracy? First and foremost, that perspective reflects a 12-year-old understanding of the world. I lacked a suitable term at the time, but it represented a collection of beliefs, which we might now refer to as a cloud, characterized by a vehement anti-regulation stance. This ideology borrowed poorly from biology, advocating for a laissez-faire approach, assuming that if we let things evolve, they will resolve themselves. These individuals fail to recognize the extent to which government has subsidized and facilitated their existence, their world, and all the research and development.
While government can indeed act detrimentally—I am an old hippie, aware of the Vietnam War and the CIA’s actions regarding Allende—I do not wish to convey that I believe everything is acceptable. However, this sector of society has less to complain about. One aspect that frustrates me is that many of these individuals are relocating to Nevada to escape California taxes. Sergey Brin’s assertion that “California is turning into Soviet Russia” is absurd. The reality is that they all cherish Tahoe. Why do they consider Tahoe’s water so pristine and blue? It is the result of decades of governmental intervention, environmental science, and regulation. There exists a profound inability to connect the dots and a lack of historical awareness.
To what extent do you believe
