Slate's Bizbox
the earthling: Science, evolution, and politics explained.

The Wrath of God

By Robert Wright
Posted Saturday, May 6, 2000, at 2:00 AM ET
Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty

Was the "love letter" computer virus inflicted on humankind by God as punishment for rampant carnality? Don't dismiss this theory until you've heard me explain it. Then you can and should dismiss it—in its literal form, at least, though I will go on to defend a secular, metaphorical version of it.

Back when the AIDS virus first started getting press, some conservatives said it was God's punishment for licentious behavior. They were presumably wrong about the "God" part. Still, you might say that, metaphorically speaking, nature was "punishing" certain forms of behavior, rather as floods are said to "punish" people who build houses in valleys. Certainly the AIDS virus would never have become such a blight but for prolific sensual indulgence—promiscuity (both homosexual and heterosexual) and intravenous drug use. (Incidentally, by that I don't just mean the obvious: that since the virus spreads through these avenues, their existence was a prerequisite for its spread. I also mean that these avenues were a prerequisite for the virus's evolved lethality.)

Of course, even if you agree that a biological virus can thus be said to "punish" certain behaviors, the word "punish" can't logically carry the value judgment that conservatives would like. After all, the flu virus "punishes" us for shaking hands—a form of social intercourse that even Pat Robertson approves of.

Anyway, today's question is: What sorts of behaviors do computer viruses "punish"? It depends on the virus. But I contend that, in the case of the love letter, sexual promiscuity was once again being punished.

Suppose you get an e-mail from an acquaintance. Suppose the e-mail says "I love you" in the subject heading and invites you to open an attachment. If you have much familiarity with the way computer viruses work, you probably won't open it. You know that some viruses use e-mail address books to send out copies of themselves; maybe the address book of your acquaintance was so used. However, there is one circumstance under which your suspicions wouldn't be aroused: If the acquaintance in question was someone that you slept with last Saturday night. Then you would click on the attachment—maybe with a sense of excitement, maybe with a sense of dread, but not with any sense for what was in fact about to happen.

Of course, here, as with biological viruses, the moral of the story can't be the simple one conservatives would like. After all, if you got an "I love you" message from your husband or wife, you would have no reason to think anything was amiss. (OK: Most spouses would have no reason to think anything was amiss. OK, OK: Many spouses would have no reason to think anything was amiss.) You would click on the attachment and get "punished" for being married.

Still, conservatives could argue with some merit that if everyone was monogamous in the biblical sense—didn't even go so far as to covet their neighbor's wife—then this virus would not have spread nearly so fast. After all, if you get the love letter from your wife, and it sends itself to everyone in your address book, why should any of these acquaintances find it plausible enough to open—unless you've been exchanging precious bodily fluids, or at least flirtatious glances, with some of them?

Obviously, the route of transmission I'm describing is not the only route that this virus exploited. There are, for example, people who profess to love people they're not sexually attracted to. (Scientists are baffled.) Coming from the e-mail boxes of people like this, the virus might be especially plausible, hence especially potent. Imagine what this virus would have given for the Dalai Lama's e-mail address!

In the wake of viruses such as this one, people will become more and more suspicious of e-mail attachments, and virus designers will find their work more and more challenging. They will have to attune their viruses both to current social norms and to timeless dimensions of human nature. In this sense, the love-letter virus was an inspired creation; few things lead to more lapses of judgment than romance.

I invite readers to submit ideas for viruses they think are in this regard crafty—along with a description of the types of people the viruses would punish. I particularly encourage ideas for viruses that readers consider "just"—viruses that would punish people who arguably deserve punishment. (For example, a virus with the subject heading, "Re: revisions in the warranty on your Mercedes Benz utility vehicle." Just kidding, of course.) The reader who submits the winning virus will receive a free visit from an FBI agent. Speaking of which: Don't send the virus itself. That's illegal. Just send the idea for the virus. Needless to say, to avoid dire global consequences, The Earthling will handle submissions with the discretion for which he has long been noted.

All roads lead to the Earthling's Hobbyhorse: Viruses—biological, computer, whatever—lead me naturally to the growing logic behind world governance. The AIDS virus, along with Ebola and other deadly infectious agents, reminds us that, in the age of jumbo jets, it is in the interest of Americans to worry about the health of people who live halfway around the world—and even to subsidize their treatment via such agencies as the World Health Organization. The love-letter virus, which seems to have originated in the Philippines, reminds us that, in the age of Internet, there is growing need for international collaboration in law enforcement—whether in the form of world courts, or internationally harmonized laws, or just mild expansions of existing legal concepts. (If Philippine laws provide little or no punishment for this crime, could the virus designer be extradited to the United States for committing an act that damaged American property but wasn't committed on American soil?) For those not familiar with this particular Earthling hobbyhorse, other examples of the growing logic behind supranational governance can be found here and here. Or even, in a sense, here.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Robert Wright, a visiting fellow at Princeton University's Center for Human Values and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, runs the Web site meaningoflife.tv and is the author of The Moral Animal and Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Response from The Fray:


Punishment for promiscuity? No, this was obviously a punishment for using Windows (or, more specifically, Outlook, and Outlook Express). Pretty funny, considering that Windows is generally considered to be its own punishment. I'm sure the cold virus is lobbying for the "freedom to innovate", too.

--Ipsin Trippix

(To reply, click here.)


Even the most sexually promiscuous people are unlikely to sleep with enough people that this virus got their guard down by having a return e-mail address from someone they had slept with recently. If you're looking for groups of folks who would use that phrase as a greeting with a relatively wide group, whom they may not know really well, I would think you would look to either the born-again or New Age socialite types, both arguably better targets for the wrath of God, or for evolution.

--Glen Tomkins

(To reply, click here.)


Maybe the virus reminds us not to buy Microsoft products which are (1) widespread, and (2) riddled with security holes and backdoors. Indeed, the real biological lesson is that diseases spread much faster in homogenous populations; the more diversity, the smaller percentage of transmission attempts succeed. If Microsoft Outlook shared the market more or less equally with 100 other programs, these viruses would be a minor nuisance.

--Joel Klein

(To reply, click here.)
[No we don't think it's that Joel Klein, and neither does David Thomson, who is angry about the impersonation. And really, Other Mr Klein, you don't want to mess with Mr Thomson--you don't know what he might think a suitable punishment for you. This is what he had to say about the virus:]


The Love Bug creator has forfeited his right to continue sharing space with the rest of us on planet earth. I strongly believe that punishment should fit the crime. If a hacker only causes minor damage, then probation for a first offense might be justified. The Love Bug has unfortunately caused destruction in the billions of dollars. Some individuals and companies almost certainly suffered irreparable damage. Thus, demanding legislation to be passed approving the death penalty is very rational and just. Individuals such as the Love Bug creator deserve to die for a crime of this unbelievable magnitude.

--David Thomson

(To reply, click here.)


There seem to be at least two different meanings of 'punish'. One implies that some authority disapproves and is seeking to alter behavior while the other refers to the allocation of gains and losses. From the point of view of the AIDS virus, for example, it is being 'rewarded' for having jumped from monkeys who don't travel very far to humans who can travel the globe. The 'reward' is that the HIV virus is vastly more successful (in biological terms) that it was before. Just because this 'success' is at the expense of some host means nothing in biological terms and the fact that we are the host, also means nothing. The biosphere is a 'jungle' and every creature simply takes what it wants/need and discards what it does not need. Only humans have adopted more 'civilized' rules, but our rules do not apply to any other beings besides us. Even we do not apply our rules to other beings. What gives humans the 'right' to grab a swimming fish out of its environment and eat it? Why isn't this murder? The same applies to a plant. We kill randomly and routinely for our own survival and the AIDS virus does the same. Would you suggest that fishing is a way to 'punish' fish for some evil behavior?

The whole premise behind the question of 'who is punished by the ILOVEYOU virus' is flawed. People are hurt, but this version of 'punish' assumes that there is an authority who is disapproving of some human behavior and seeking to change it. Sheer nonsense. Would you claim that an earthquake is deliberate punishment meted out by some 'intelligence' to teach the victims a lesson and change their behavior? I would not make this claim.

--Jim Kay

(To reply, click here.)


Re: Your new world order hobbyhorse. I don't suppose that the fact that "supranational governance" would not, and cannot, be democratic in any meaningful sense is anything that we should be at all concerned about?

--Fred

(To reply, click here.)


Presumably, the Love Bug virus acted to punish people who believed in the possibility of romantic love. I assume that if an e-mail virus is sent out with the subject of "Let's kill all fags," the computers of the Republican National Committee, Commentary magazine, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff will all instantly melt.

--Paul Gottlieb

(To reply, click here.)


Before long, the virus writers will figure out the obvious, and simply give the email virus a subject line reading "Virus Warning".

--Chip Pearson

(To reply, click here.)

(5/8)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Fiscal Drunkards, Dry Out
Ruth Marcus | Which candidate could lead us to economic sobriety?
Meyerson: Gods That FailedMilbank: Confidence Isn't Cheap