What do you think?
Rate this book
We Just Build Hammers: Stories from the Past, Present, and Future of Responsible Tech
Philosopher Noam Chomsky is famously quoted as saying that technology is neither good nor bad, but simply a neutral tool. He likens it to a hammer, which can be used by carpenters and torturers alike. While the neutrality of tech is an idea that appeals to many technologists, this perspective is out of alignment with today's realities of pervasive ad-tech, surveillance capitalism, algorithmic manipulation, and rising techno-fascism.
We Just Build Hammers applies a lens of speculative and science fiction to connect you with a historical lineage of thinkers and activists in the responsible tech movement. Its narrative spans a century of major technological from the advent of the atomic age to the formative years of computing; from the hacker visionaries of the turn of the century to the tech justice revolutionaries of today.
This book challenges technologists to consider for themselves whether they're really just "building hammers"– technologies whose potential for good balances their potential for harm– or if they are unwittingly contributing to systems that exacerbate inequality, inequity, and injustice.
What You Will Learn
A historic grounding and a science fiction perspective to help untangle the difficult and fraught topic of tech ethics
Ways to bring ethical considerations into the development of new technologies
How to navigate the increasing complexity of the techno-social world we live and work in
Who This Book is For
Designed to appeal broadly, not just to engineers and technologists, but to anyone interested in the history and future of ethics and technology.
We Just Build Hammers applies a lens of speculative and science fiction to connect you with a historical lineage of thinkers and activists in the responsible tech movement. Its narrative spans a century of major technological from the advent of the atomic age to the formative years of computing; from the hacker visionaries of the turn of the century to the tech justice revolutionaries of today.
This book challenges technologists to consider for themselves whether they're really just "building hammers"– technologies whose potential for good balances their potential for harm– or if they are unwittingly contributing to systems that exacerbate inequality, inequity, and injustice.
What You Will Learn
A historic grounding and a science fiction perspective to help untangle the difficult and fraught topic of tech ethics
Ways to bring ethical considerations into the development of new technologies
How to navigate the increasing complexity of the techno-social world we live and work in
Who This Book is For
Designed to appeal broadly, not just to engineers and technologists, but to anyone interested in the history and future of ethics and technology.
- GenresTechnologyNonfiction
299 pages, Kindle Edition
Published February 26, 2025
2 people are currently reading
26 people want to read
About the author
Coraline Ada Ehmke
2 booksTech ethicist and open source troublemaker. Creator of Contributor Covenant, the most widely used code of conduct for digital communities, and the Hippocratic License, an open software license designed to protect human rights. Co-founder of the Organization for Ethical Source and author of We Just Build Hammers: Stories from the Past, Present, and Future of Responsible Tech.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
April 12, 2025
I discovered Coraline Ada Ehmke when she was a host on the Greater Than Code podcast. She displayed a very humanistic outlook in her interactions on the podcast. I was excited to read her first book.
The premise is very interesting: ideas that were first raised by science fiction writers have had a deep influence in the sciences and in tech. Authors see threats to humanity and show what could happen if we are not careful.
H.G. Wells anticipated atomic power's potential for both global destruction and plentiful energy production; his characters work to prevent the global war and ensure everyone benefits from the bounty. Years later, Leo Szilard would echo these ideas as he worked as part of Project Manhattan and on the control of nuclear weapons after World War II.
Edmund Berkeley anticipated the great impact of computers. He worked to democratize access to computing technology and exhort practitioners to exercise their ethical responsibility. Many disagreed and maintained those who build a tool are not responsible for how that tool is used. Like the hammers in the title.
Neal Stephenson anticipated how society went online and could be at the mercy of a few large corporations; he promoted a hacker culture where individuals retained enough skills to mount an effective counter-power. He inspired people at MIT and elsewhere to create the Open Source movement and keep the in the hands of the people. Large corporations remain on the lookout for ways to co-opt this movement to get free labor and keep the profits (and surveillance).
Samuel Delany anticipated a highly diverse society and the possibility of many marginalized communities; he proposed a model away from the homogenized, white male-centric societies of Wells, Berkeley, and Stephenson. He inspired early social justice warriors and DEI efforts. The counter currents have been very powerful, turning SJW into a negative and dismantling many DEI efforts. It's a great game of "two steps forward, one step back," though it feels more like five steps forward, four steps back, at times (e.g., losing Twitter).
All these authors share the same fundamental flaw: they expected members of society to be rational actors. Reality is much more messy. Many people are selfishly pursuing their own interests, and they do no hesitate to harness these new technologies to reach their goals, not matter the cost to others.
Wells' ingredients are in direct opposition to the goals of capitalists, as seen in Crack-Up Capitalism . Industrialists want the removal of global governance to better exploit local populations. And, they want maximal application of technology for maximal extraction of profits.
ASIDE: On 2025-04-02, the Trump administration announced a number of new tariffs in an escalating trade war with the rest of the world. The following day, as stock markets fell sharply, The Majority Report contributor Emma Vigeland opined that "they have been using AI to implement mass layoffs because they just want to destroy." Berkeley failed to anticipate modern campaigns of disinformation and how they can sow distrust in the institutions that support democratic societies.
Many authors see their future societies as meritocratic instead of the random autocracies of the past. The best people would be carried to the top of power structures and would be in the best position to steer the future of humanity.
NOTE: Reminds me of stories of promotion committees at Google for software engineers discarding manager feedback on candidates as irrelevant.
The problem with meritocracy is that it favors early participants, who get to start from a clean slate and make contributions with large impacts. New arrivals have to contend with an increasingly complex environment, and their contributions will be much less likely to have a large impact, or else will require much more effort. The cost of "merit" grows over time.
In the end, these authors and their detractors failed to account for human irrationality as they envisioned societies of the future.
The book came out just at the second Trump administration got into the White House. The last part of the book discusses major changes in society for the inclusion of minorities. In the book, the struggles are ongoing, but society is slowly making progress. The Trump administration has been putting immense pressure to dismantle DEI efforts across all levels of government, in private enterprises, and even in foreign nations. I find it very sad to see all this progress laid to waste.
I do have a couple mild criticisms. In the introduction, Ms. Ehmke uses Mary Shelley's Frankenstein to illustrate the importance of a technologist's ethics and their responsibility for what they create. Ehmke uses a well-known piece of literature with a clear morale. But in the main body of her book, she brings up an obscure Wells works, The World Set Free, and a niche Stephenson novel, Snow Crash. While these works indubitably touched individuals like Leo Szilard and Richard Stallman, and through them carried a wide indirect influence, I don't know that they were widely known on their own. I had never heard of Edmund Berkeley, but I knew of the ACM. This could be the result of how he was sidestepped towards the end of his life. I had never heard of Samuel Delany either, but that's just my own ignorance of queer literature. While I was happy to discover these authors and their works, I initially thought we would explore works of science fiction with more recognition.
My second criticism is that in a few places, the books becomes strangely autobiographical. Like on page 208, on pages 211-212, and again on pages 234-235. Ms. Ehmke is a successful activist, and she covers some of her own stumping ground. But the effect is still a little jarring. Up until then, the book had been dealing with towering figures in their respective field: Wells, Szilard, Stephenson, Berkeley. I hesitate to put Ms. Ehmke on the same level as them.
To end on a funny note, there is an interesting quote roughly a quarter into the book.
When I read this, I was curious if Ms. Ehmke would tie it to Google's early goal of organizing and making accessible the world's information. And also to Project Ocean that tried to digitize each and every book in the world. Alas, she did not. But now, I wonder if Larry Page and Sergey Brin had ever read it.
The premise is very interesting: ideas that were first raised by science fiction writers have had a deep influence in the sciences and in tech. Authors see threats to humanity and show what could happen if we are not careful.
H.G. Wells anticipated atomic power's potential for both global destruction and plentiful energy production; his characters work to prevent the global war and ensure everyone benefits from the bounty. Years later, Leo Szilard would echo these ideas as he worked as part of Project Manhattan and on the control of nuclear weapons after World War II.
Edmund Berkeley anticipated the great impact of computers. He worked to democratize access to computing technology and exhort practitioners to exercise their ethical responsibility. Many disagreed and maintained those who build a tool are not responsible for how that tool is used. Like the hammers in the title.
Neal Stephenson anticipated how society went online and could be at the mercy of a few large corporations; he promoted a hacker culture where individuals retained enough skills to mount an effective counter-power. He inspired people at MIT and elsewhere to create the Open Source movement and keep the in the hands of the people. Large corporations remain on the lookout for ways to co-opt this movement to get free labor and keep the profits (and surveillance).
Samuel Delany anticipated a highly diverse society and the possibility of many marginalized communities; he proposed a model away from the homogenized, white male-centric societies of Wells, Berkeley, and Stephenson. He inspired early social justice warriors and DEI efforts. The counter currents have been very powerful, turning SJW into a negative and dismantling many DEI efforts. It's a great game of "two steps forward, one step back," though it feels more like five steps forward, four steps back, at times (e.g., losing Twitter).
All these authors share the same fundamental flaw: they expected members of society to be rational actors. Reality is much more messy. Many people are selfishly pursuing their own interests, and they do no hesitate to harness these new technologies to reach their goals, not matter the cost to others.
Wells emphasized the two ingredients he considered essential to the survival of the human race: the globalization of governance, and the responsible application of new technologies. p. 12
Wells' ingredients are in direct opposition to the goals of capitalists, as seen in Crack-Up Capitalism . Industrialists want the removal of global governance to better exploit local populations. And, they want maximal application of technology for maximal extraction of profits.
As soon as antisocial human beings have access to the controls, the danger to society becomes great. — Edmund Berkeley p. 109
ASIDE: On 2025-04-02, the Trump administration announced a number of new tariffs in an escalating trade war with the rest of the world. The following day, as stock markets fell sharply, The Majority Report contributor Emma Vigeland opined that "they have been using AI to implement mass layoffs because they just want to destroy." Berkeley failed to anticipate modern campaigns of disinformation and how they can sow distrust in the institutions that support democratic societies.
He [Berkeley] considered ignorance to be a lack of sophisticated knowledge, not a stubborn refutation of truth. p. 110
Berkeley saw prejudice as a natural phenomenon emerging from an emphasis on systems of belief over systems of knowledge. He described the difficulty that humans have with sorting out beliefs from verifiable, objective facts. p. 110
Many authors see their future societies as meritocratic instead of the random autocracies of the past. The best people would be carried to the top of power structures and would be in the best position to steer the future of humanity.
Meritocracy seemed to offer a solution to the problem of power disparities between computer programmers and their employers or institutions. Traditional measures of authority were mocked and undermined, with managers and other nontechnical types deemed unworthy of much attention. p. 146
NOTE: Reminds me of stories of promotion committees at Google for software engineers discarding manager feedback on candidates as irrelevant.
The problem with meritocracy is that it favors early participants, who get to start from a clean slate and make contributions with large impacts. New arrivals have to contend with an increasingly complex environment, and their contributions will be much less likely to have a large impact, or else will require much more effort. The cost of "merit" grows over time.
But everyone doesn't actually start on a level playing field; in fact, the very differences that meritocracy was intended to erase make all the difference in who is allowed to participate. With few exceptions, open source had always been dominated by white men. p. 171
In the end, these authors and their detractors failed to account for human irrationality as they envisioned societies of the future.
But despite their best efforts, hackers couldn't make the world any more rational than the atomic scientists or Berkeley and his peers had before them. p. 176
The book came out just at the second Trump administration got into the White House. The last part of the book discusses major changes in society for the inclusion of minorities. In the book, the struggles are ongoing, but society is slowly making progress. The Trump administration has been putting immense pressure to dismantle DEI efforts across all levels of government, in private enterprises, and even in foreign nations. I find it very sad to see all this progress laid to waste.
I do have a couple mild criticisms. In the introduction, Ms. Ehmke uses Mary Shelley's Frankenstein to illustrate the importance of a technologist's ethics and their responsibility for what they create. Ehmke uses a well-known piece of literature with a clear morale. But in the main body of her book, she brings up an obscure Wells works, The World Set Free, and a niche Stephenson novel, Snow Crash. While these works indubitably touched individuals like Leo Szilard and Richard Stallman, and through them carried a wide indirect influence, I don't know that they were widely known on their own. I had never heard of Edmund Berkeley, but I knew of the ACM. This could be the result of how he was sidestepped towards the end of his life. I had never heard of Samuel Delany either, but that's just my own ignorance of queer literature. While I was happy to discover these authors and their works, I initially thought we would explore works of science fiction with more recognition.
My second criticism is that in a few places, the books becomes strangely autobiographical. Like on page 208, on pages 211-212, and again on pages 234-235. Ms. Ehmke is a successful activist, and she covers some of her own stumping ground. But the effect is still a little jarring. Up until then, the book had been dealing with towering figures in their respective field: Wells, Szilard, Stephenson, Berkeley. I hesitate to put Ms. Ehmke on the same level as them.
To end on a funny note, there is an interesting quote roughly a quarter into the book.
computers could be used to help address societal problems […] or even "rendering accessible the enormous flood of scientific books and technical papers" being produced all around the world. p. 78
When I read this, I was curious if Ms. Ehmke would tie it to Google's early goal of organizing and making accessible the world's information. And also to Project Ocean that tried to digitize each and every book in the world. Alas, she did not. But now, I wonder if Larry Page and Sergey Brin had ever read it.
May 1, 2025
I'm not sure I've ever read a more important or relevant book in my life. This is not an academic text (though it should be required reading for everyone with the internet) so much as it is a wildly well-written romp through the parts of our history wildly influencing our daily lives today. Coraline's clear writing style and incredible research combine for stories that you cannot believe you have not heard before. She shines a light on essential but mostly forgotten (or intentionally sidelined) figures in the history of tech who might have helped us build a more ethical foundation if only anyone paid attention. What's so exciting is that she also uncovered the works of speculative fiction that inspired these scientists to take a broader view of what they were building.
EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS BOOK.
EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS BOOK.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews