I was obsessed by games when I was kid. They've almost lost their grip on me. Even when I go actively looking for some distraction I can't find anything good. There has been one exception in the last couple of years, minecraft.
There's virtually no innovation, but I'm not sure that's the reason, I think you just move on. I remember a crossover point where I looked at realistic graphics and thought "I could just go outside and go for a run" and then did.
Innovation doesn't please shareholders nearly as much as re-hashing the same banal gameplay mechanics with slight tweaks every year or so (Call of Duty). The industry did it to themselves when they sold their soul to the casuals. I have little sympathy for them, but perhaps it's better for me personally.
I make time for a few games a year, and call it good. I'll get hooked from time to time, but never like I used to.
Personally, I got sick of feeling cornered whenever an authority figure and/or girl asked me what I do for fun. I never really stopped enjoying video games, I just saw one too many pairs of glazed-over eyes and almost-imperceptibly curled lips and decided it wasn't worth the stigma or the opportunity cost (lost 42 pounds since I quit!).
I enjoy social (multiplayer) games. The teamwork and the potential that presents itself for the group of people I'm playing with is usually what holds me, instead of just what the game presents at a basic level.
For example: I mostly play Battlefield 3 right now, and while the graphics are good, and the game plays nicely, the value comes almost entirely from the social experience in the context of the gameplay.
There's an assumption behind these worried articles that there's a natural, non-virtual mode of existence for human beings when we're not reading books, watching movies or playing games. Perhaps we are living in the outdoors, breathing fresh air and weaving accessories from wild grasses.
However, this can't be true. As David Deutsch has argued, humans are knowledge creators: we thrive only by thinking about our environment and our problems and trying to improve stuff. It has been thus since we split from the rest of the primates.
We cannot perceive reality directly. Thinking itself is a form of virtual reality rendering. In order to improve stuff, we have to imagine how it could be different. So we all exist in virtual realities, whether we want to or not.
Obviously this doesn't address all the concerns in the article, but it might be a better starting point. One could go on to consider the educational value of games, perhaps by asking whether all learning can be regarded as forms of gaming. And then: which games are better than others and why?
Isn't most of what humans do wasteful? What about "lieing on a beach sipping cocktails to death" or "commuting to death" or "painting to death" or "watching TV to death" or "reading to death"?
If you condemn computer games, you condemn all other forms of art at the same time. So I suppose the only worthwhile conducts of human life are technological and scientific research, and building infrastructure? I don't think it is as simple as that. And if you have created the perfect infrastructure and won against cancer, then what? Why live? What did you optimize for? That we can enjoy stuff seems to make us want to live at the same time.
> If you condemn computer games, you condemn all other forms of art at the same time.
Creating computer games can be an art. Playing computer games seldom is. There aren't that many games that you can play creatively, and really few where your creations can have any value outside of the universe of the game.
the only worthwhile conducts of human life are technological and scientific research, and building infrastructure
Wow... the basis of my philosophy! IMHO: technological and scientific research - and art! - are basically the worthwhile "ends".
Building infrastructure (as well as mining, agriculture, most manufacturing, health care, SOME lawmaking, SOME politics, SOME entertainment, SOME advertising etc etc) ARE worthwhile, being the means to the abovementioned ends.
(and MOST politics, entertainment, lawmaking, advertising and so on are plain old not worthwhile, or even harmful).
Actually, I'm not condemning computer games at all, though my tone was generally dark (I hadn't had coffee yet). As provocative as my title was, "death" to me just meant that of the body, not the mind, I'm a singulatarian after all, as well as a video game nerd. I'm in favor of art, games, and the inevitable 'death' that comes after they've hit a not-so-distant inflection point.
I've lost friends to WoW. To my perspective, they could literally be dead and I would have the same experience - I know they are online but they are completely inaccessible inside their game world.
That Bruce Willis movie with the immersive VR was a catchy prediction for the new opiate. Large portions of society are waiting for the chance to lose themselves in a deterministic, programmed world that is more pleasurable than their reality. It's terrifying to consider the ramifications of this. If you can plug in, feed yourself some poptarts and hydrate every 8 hours, and otherwise float in limbo being someone you love more than your real self, we're going to see entire classes of people disappear, just like my WoW friends that I'll probably never chat with again.
Caroline continued. "So they learn where the pleasure points are by hook or
crook, then stimulate themselves directly. And when they get it right, they
never do anything else. They get everything maximized, tuned up, and they just
sit there forever enjoying it."
"Right. Now is a creature that is doing that, not interacting with the world
at all any more, human?"
Caroline thought about it. "No."
"Prime Intellect thinks otherwise. But it has its doubts."
> Large portions of society are waiting for the chance to lose themselves in a deterministic, programmed world that is more pleasurable than their reality. It's terrifying to consider the ramifications of this. If you can plug in, feed yourself some poptarts and hydrate every 8 hours, and otherwise float in limbo being someone you love more than your real self, we're going to see entire classes of people disappear, just like my WoW friends that I'll probably never chat with again.
You're describing the Metaverse from Neal Stephenson's `Snow Crash'.
Aren't we programmers also living in the limbo of work and study to forget our nihilism? Or maybe it's just me.
The programming mini-world with its mini-quests and mini-heroes, disconnected from the cold reality.
And they didn't die or disappear, they just joined another group. It just happens that the barrier is quite thick.
But yeah I'm still a bit worried by what you say.
I've been playing Skyrim lately and I can only describe it as endlessly entertaining. I had the very same thought that the article talks about.
Skyrim is almost completely realistic-looking. At some point in the near future, the games we play will likely be indistinguishable from reality, or even more likely, much better than reality in every way.
But the more surprising thing is that Skyrim has a system that randomly generates more stuff to do than you could reasonably do in a lifetime of playing the game. Now, it's essentially the same thing over and over, but there's no reason to assume that games in the future won't become even better at this. The key point is that there is stuff to do in the game that someone didn't have to manually create.
The logical conclusion is that at some point in the future, there will exist an endless supply of stuff to do that is more entertaining than reality, not just in the current "addictive until you eventually get bored a year later" way, but in the "automatically generated by algorithms so complex that the game is constantly new and surprising and you will never get bored" way.
I wonder where that will lead. Maybe it's the ultimate bread and circus for the populous, where one could lead an extremely happy and fulfilling life in a virtual world with essentially no cost to anyone.
And if you take a step back, that's exactly where we are today, at least in the developed world. For the most part, if you abandon all the trappings of the modern, virtual world, you can live a happy and fulfilling life for nearly zero cost. But we choose to buy cell phones, TV's, and other forms of entertainment that aren't really necessary.
Beyond the necessities, it's all entertainment, including that 40 hour job that you don't really have to do to live or that startup you founded because you believe it will make your life better.
This kind of article bugs me. It's evolution in action. Think of it as speciation: H. sapiens for those that stay, H. cyberneticus for those that go down the rabbit hole. Either way, if you don't want to play - don't play! More world for you! Where's the problem here?
Of course, I'm also looking forward to my property values going up when all you coastal people find your houses a mile offshore, so maybe I'm just excessively phlegmatic to start with.
The problem is we aren't evolved to handle such stimulation right now. That'll lead to unintended consequences. Just like eating fast foods leads to obesity, and modern loneliness leads to mental diseases. Many a million years from now.. but not now.
I'm trying to stay unaddicted and I have friends who are far better at me at it. I don't game, but like most people, I'm a FB, Quora, Reddit, HN checker and I've started to realize that I'm hitting a point of diminishing returns with all these articles, photos, memes. I still come back and love the thoughts this article and discussion have provoked, but these are few and far between.
It's a hard balance. It's fun to go Reddit/funny just to have a few laughs and it's fun to post links and songs to entertain friends in other states/countries, but at what point is this really good for me or satisfying? Wouldn't it be better to take all my mindshare and energy and go learn the skills that will get me a more satisfying job? Or do the things that would get me more time with women (affection/sex)? More time in nature? More friendships? Strengthen my body...etc. etc.
I'm still in love with physical reality. I'm always in awe of the world when I look at Boston.com's big picture or watch nature videos on Vimeo.
I don't really have a point, just that it saddens me quite a bit to think how much people are missing out the world. And this is in an old argument, but it's no wonder people don't care about the destruction of the species/habitat when they're so amused in some virtual world. It's hard not to cross my fingers for some massive power outage/food shortage temporary wake up call.
I've been thinking about this myself. I concluded that if a Matrix-like option was offered (not forced), where your body would be used as a power source but your mind would be in some distant, impossible fantasy world which you are able to make up yourself, many people would take that option instead of continuing to live their normal life.
I know that if I were offered something like that, a world where I could live out fantasies with no conditions, other than that I give up my body, I may very well take it.
The end of humanity as we know it, perhaps, indeed.
While I agree with most of the points the author makes, I can't see why he would concentrate on video games. It's not much harder to be addicted to the internet, or to anime or visual novels (see the Japanese hikkikomori), or to anything else that we can play/watch/do alone in the comfort of our own rooms. And these other addictions have much the same effect as those the author describes. In fact, I'd wager that most people who have played a game like Diablo 2 or World of Warcraft for a long time don't continue to do so because of the game itself, which has lost its immersive quality for a long time, but rather because of the friends they made, and the alternate society they are a part of. The greatest danger of MMORPGs is in my opinion that they are social games.
Same theme. It goes a little more into talking about societal implication; e.g. there'll be a divide in society as a result between the norm - "addiction" in some regards - and those who can/choose to stay unaddicted.
Right now, I coded my blog to a different 'fun' color that varies w/ the day of the post. Cooking up a new theme w/ readability improvements, I'll reconsider that color (though do check out http://restrictionisexpression.com for full effect)
> If I could take a pill to skip meals or sleep in a healthy way, I would.
Multivitamins and melatonin?
The only real question I have is: will this super-entertainment world be better than this one outside of the entertainment-sphere? I don't really care if people waste their lives in WoW or equivalent, so long as I'm not forced to join them or support them living in that world. (I'd like to see the day when basic needs like food/shelter/water are next to free in costs so people could waste their lives without burdening anyone else, if they wanted to.)
Even if I could be convinced that joining them would make me feel so good about the decision afterwards, I'd resist in the same manner I resist buying/making meth today. I'm still fascinated by reality, and I want to continue to be the sort of person fascinated by reality, so I'll refuse your drug that would make me say the same things about your virtual reality.
Others here have noted that the prediction pattern-matches against lots of older ones, it certainly goes back throughout the ages. It would be amusing if Star Trek got it right in the end: a holodeck used as occasional recreation (and for other things) in the same way our t.v.s and games are used as occasional recreation, rather than something real that many people spend their lives in.
It would be amusing if Star Trek got it right in the end
Don't forget that Lieutenant "Broccoli" Barclay had a Holodeck addiction/obsession.
Also, didn't Star Trek Enterprise variants always have some huge number of crew (or civilians, I don't recall) aboard? They couldn't all be transporting down to exotic locations every episode, so they must have had to make up something to do all day.
I assume the title is an oblique reference to Neil Postman's seminal book Amusing Ourselves To Death, in which the author argued that TV had created a Huxleyan culture in which it became impossible to carry on the kind of informed, rational public discourse that a functioning democracy requires.
It's interesting to go back and read previous generations attempts to look 40 years into the future and guess what the biggest problems will be. Generally you end up with "amusing" rather than "prescient", such that the exceptions are noteworthy.
While I fully anticipate that this sort of world will cause some sort of problems, I doubt we can really call them this far in advance.
I'd also observe that if one lives more or less their entire reality in some sort of VR simulation... so what? I can make arguments in both directions (at length, actually but I'll spare you) but it's too rich a question to implicitly assert an answer.
I'd also observe that if one lives more or less their entire reality in some sort of VR simulation... so what?
The meta-question here is very interesting. At what point do humans controlling their environment cease being humans? So yes, you could sit absolutely still and live a tremendously-rewarding virtual life because you have designed a world that emotionally compels you to never leave. To the rest of us, you look like a potted plant. Does that make you less human? Or, to put differently, if you were completely paralyzed, yet were able to think (I believe they call it "locked in") is there anything wrong with you that the rest of us should care about and fix? Is how we define being a human inexorably linked to physical social participation? I believe so, but I'm not comfortable with my own line of reasoning here.
Note that I don't have a problem with us evolving into something else. My only concern is that we acknowledge what's happening so that we can realistically talk about it. If we are evolving, then there will be a selection function that we had get pretty damn good at meeting. I imagine that function is going to be the ability to turn the system off from time to time. What I see instead is millions of folks who spend more time than even they are happy with plugged in and are in a great bit of denial as to exactly what social effect that is having. If you ask me, the singularity is already here. We just can't see it.
I sometimes reflect about this and one aspect that was not mentioned and I believe will have a lot of weight on how all this evolves is the maltusian limits of the real world vs the cornucopian and limitless aspect of the virtual.
Simple economics tell us that as population grows and natural resources are depleted, real physical goods and services will become scarce and costly especially compared to virtual ones which seem to be created with a shrinking amount of matter and energy.
The implication of this are interesting for the evolution of humanity.
Will reality become a luxury, where the common people will be able to afford nothing more than basic subsistence including low cost per calorie diet and a few cubic meters of real word dwelling? Will only the rich be able to afford the additional matter and energy to provide for further floor space, better food and physical travel?
The cost difference between virtual experiences and real world experiences might become so large that most people will prefer to get the better bang for the buck available virtually.
What are the implication for jobs, how will value be created and distributed when people spend most of their time in a virtual world? Here, I don't mean just entertainment goods that are only worth something in the context of a game. I mean things like education, artistic virtual experiences, virtual social events, virtual performances, movies, music, etc. The virtual economy will be greatly influenced by intellectual property laws and I assume, a lot of these goods will have to include DRM for sustaining jobs even if the goods are really cheap compared to real world goods.
What activities will give meaning to human life? Intellectual endeavors, artistic endeavors and socializing should remain low cost and may still offer a lot of depth and complexity to people's lives, especially as the tools to support these activities become better. In fact, if you evaluate your life by the breath of ideas, relationships and arts you are able to master, a life lived virtually might become more fulfilling than one encumbered by the limits of the real world.
How will serious social relationships evolve in virtual worlds? What are the implications for reproduction?
In a virtual world, it is going to be really easy to move away when not getting along with a community. It will also be really easy to create new communities for like minded individuals. People might not have to get along they might just isolate themselves in smaller communities. What are the implications for the way politics will be performed. What are the implication for law enforcement? What are the implications for war and how will all this spill over into the real world? The communities will still have to collaborate to maintain real world security and defense.
Then there is the issue of the physical body's health needs. Will the human body be able to adapt to this type of life?
Will resource scarcity push humanity to a virtual existence? When you look at people living in their parents' basement spending all their time online, sometimes because of the lack of economic opportunity in the real world, it sure makes it look like the transition has already begun.
Yet behind each bread and butter eater there is a mind. Maltusian limits are only limits when the incremental human produces helps humanity extract a lesser ratio from what is to what could be. With the information age upon us I do not believe this is the case.
I was in an engineering class called "sustainable development" at Waterloo and got into an argument with my professor about a "maximum human population". My point, that I still hold to this day, was that the average extra human will increase our capacity for more humans by more than one. Whether it is from space cities or virtual realities we are not a virus that the movie The Matrix portrays us to be. We will expand to the stars, the sea, the deep earth, and other realities; whether they be on silicon chips or other dimensions. Just wait until Gataca comes or mind-computer interfaces. The average IQ in 2011 terms will be 150.
You can push the logic even further : as even sustaining your body in a small tank becomes unsustainable, one might really go all virtual : get rid of your body, and upload your mind in a piece of silicon (or whatever replaced silicon). The silicon would be much less expensive to run than your meat brain.
Even if you don't believe your upload wouldn't truly be you, you might take the option, if the alternative is certain death by starvation. Better die and spawn a ghost, than die and leave nothing.
Now it's not all pretty: if you assume a capitalistic, competitive environment, one could set up "interesting" forms of exploitation. An upload could be saved, stopped, restarted, spied on, tortured… Robin Hanson produced quite interesting (though horrifying) speculation about how such a world might look like.
Using technology as not only a getaway but as a replacement for the 'human OS' (if you will) has been slowly happening over the past 30 years, and will continue to happen as long as technology makes real life better.
Think about how you work today: you sit down in front of a screen. You sit there for 5, 8, 12 hours and stare at a screen to do your work. Millions of desk-workers everywhere have become people staring at screens for about 8 hours a day, playing with a handheld screen when not at a desk.
A large part of it is because technology is enabling and seen as a benefit, but that doesn't detract from the fact that it is an invasive effect in the lives of the first world. As technology gets better, becomes more enabling, and allows us to do more with it, I don't see that stopping.
In the book, the protagonist discovers a world in which people have abandoned reality in favor of a more enjoyable virtual world. As a result, society declines to the point where the real world is crumbling down.
Not saying that's what will happen, but it's an interesting read.
[+] [-] cturner|14 years ago|reply
There's virtually no innovation, but I'm not sure that's the reason, I think you just move on. I remember a crossover point where I looked at realistic graphics and thought "I could just go outside and go for a run" and then did.
[+] [-] mattgreenrocks|14 years ago|reply
Innovation doesn't please shareholders nearly as much as re-hashing the same banal gameplay mechanics with slight tweaks every year or so (Call of Duty). The industry did it to themselves when they sold their soul to the casuals. I have little sympathy for them, but perhaps it's better for me personally.
I make time for a few games a year, and call it good. I'll get hooked from time to time, but never like I used to.
[+] [-] neutronicus|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfoutz|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcromartie|14 years ago|reply
For example: I mostly play Battlefield 3 right now, and while the graphics are good, and the game plays nicely, the value comes almost entirely from the social experience in the context of the gameplay.
[+] [-] scurfuration|14 years ago|reply
However, this can't be true. As David Deutsch has argued, humans are knowledge creators: we thrive only by thinking about our environment and our problems and trying to improve stuff. It has been thus since we split from the rest of the primates.
We cannot perceive reality directly. Thinking itself is a form of virtual reality rendering. In order to improve stuff, we have to imagine how it could be different. So we all exist in virtual realities, whether we want to or not.
Obviously this doesn't address all the concerns in the article, but it might be a better starting point. One could go on to consider the educational value of games, perhaps by asking whether all learning can be regarded as forms of gaming. And then: which games are better than others and why?
[+] [-] Tichy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a3_nm|14 years ago|reply
Creating computer games can be an art. Playing computer games seldom is. There aren't that many games that you can play creatively, and really few where your creations can have any value outside of the universe of the game.
[+] [-] D_Alex|14 years ago|reply
Wow... the basis of my philosophy! IMHO: technological and scientific research - and art! - are basically the worthwhile "ends".
Building infrastructure (as well as mining, agriculture, most manufacturing, health care, SOME lawmaking, SOME politics, SOME entertainment, SOME advertising etc etc) ARE worthwhile, being the means to the abovementioned ends.
(and MOST politics, entertainment, lawmaking, advertising and so on are plain old not worthwhile, or even harmful).
[+] [-] aaronwhite|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] digitalsushi|14 years ago|reply
That Bruce Willis movie with the immersive VR was a catchy prediction for the new opiate. Large portions of society are waiting for the chance to lose themselves in a deterministic, programmed world that is more pleasurable than their reality. It's terrifying to consider the ramifications of this. If you can plug in, feed yourself some poptarts and hydrate every 8 hours, and otherwise float in limbo being someone you love more than your real self, we're going to see entire classes of people disappear, just like my WoW friends that I'll probably never chat with again.
[+] [-] boredguy8|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acuozzo|14 years ago|reply
You're describing the Metaverse from Neal Stephenson's `Snow Crash'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash
Read it. It's fun.
[+] [-] lywald|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drblast|14 years ago|reply
Skyrim is almost completely realistic-looking. At some point in the near future, the games we play will likely be indistinguishable from reality, or even more likely, much better than reality in every way.
But the more surprising thing is that Skyrim has a system that randomly generates more stuff to do than you could reasonably do in a lifetime of playing the game. Now, it's essentially the same thing over and over, but there's no reason to assume that games in the future won't become even better at this. The key point is that there is stuff to do in the game that someone didn't have to manually create.
The logical conclusion is that at some point in the future, there will exist an endless supply of stuff to do that is more entertaining than reality, not just in the current "addictive until you eventually get bored a year later" way, but in the "automatically generated by algorithms so complex that the game is constantly new and surprising and you will never get bored" way.
I wonder where that will lead. Maybe it's the ultimate bread and circus for the populous, where one could lead an extremely happy and fulfilling life in a virtual world with essentially no cost to anyone.
And if you take a step back, that's exactly where we are today, at least in the developed world. For the most part, if you abandon all the trappings of the modern, virtual world, you can live a happy and fulfilling life for nearly zero cost. But we choose to buy cell phones, TV's, and other forms of entertainment that aren't really necessary.
Beyond the necessities, it's all entertainment, including that 40 hour job that you don't really have to do to live or that startup you founded because you believe it will make your life better.
[+] [-] Vivtek|14 years ago|reply
Of course, I'm also looking forward to my property values going up when all you coastal people find your houses a mile offshore, so maybe I'm just excessively phlegmatic to start with.
[+] [-] AznHisoka|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kpennell|14 years ago|reply
It's a hard balance. It's fun to go Reddit/funny just to have a few laughs and it's fun to post links and songs to entertain friends in other states/countries, but at what point is this really good for me or satisfying? Wouldn't it be better to take all my mindshare and energy and go learn the skills that will get me a more satisfying job? Or do the things that would get me more time with women (affection/sex)? More time in nature? More friendships? Strengthen my body...etc. etc.
I'm still in love with physical reality. I'm always in awe of the world when I look at Boston.com's big picture or watch nature videos on Vimeo.
I don't really have a point, just that it saddens me quite a bit to think how much people are missing out the world. And this is in an old argument, but it's no wonder people don't care about the destruction of the species/habitat when they're so amused in some virtual world. It's hard not to cross my fingers for some massive power outage/food shortage temporary wake up call.
[+] [-] Zirro|14 years ago|reply
I know that if I were offered something like that, a world where I could live out fantasies with no conditions, other than that I give up my body, I may very well take it.
The end of humanity as we know it, perhaps, indeed.
[+] [-] feor|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xibernetik|14 years ago|reply
Same theme. It goes a little more into talking about societal implication; e.g. there'll be a divide in society as a result between the norm - "addiction" in some regards - and those who can/choose to stay unaddicted.
[+] [-] akkartik|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stuffihavemade|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaronwhite|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zirro|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jach|14 years ago|reply
Multivitamins and melatonin?
The only real question I have is: will this super-entertainment world be better than this one outside of the entertainment-sphere? I don't really care if people waste their lives in WoW or equivalent, so long as I'm not forced to join them or support them living in that world. (I'd like to see the day when basic needs like food/shelter/water are next to free in costs so people could waste their lives without burdening anyone else, if they wanted to.)
Even if I could be convinced that joining them would make me feel so good about the decision afterwards, I'd resist in the same manner I resist buying/making meth today. I'm still fascinated by reality, and I want to continue to be the sort of person fascinated by reality, so I'll refuse your drug that would make me say the same things about your virtual reality.
Others here have noted that the prediction pattern-matches against lots of older ones, it certainly goes back throughout the ages. It would be amusing if Star Trek got it right in the end: a holodeck used as occasional recreation (and for other things) in the same way our t.v.s and games are used as occasional recreation, rather than something real that many people spend their lives in.
[+] [-] sliverstorm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] georgieporgie|14 years ago|reply
Don't forget that Lieutenant "Broccoli" Barclay had a Holodeck addiction/obsession.
Also, didn't Star Trek Enterprise variants always have some huge number of crew (or civilians, I don't recall) aboard? They couldn't all be transporting down to exotic locations every episode, so they must have had to make up something to do all day.
[+] [-] RyanMcGreal|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaronwhite|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jerf|14 years ago|reply
While I fully anticipate that this sort of world will cause some sort of problems, I doubt we can really call them this far in advance.
I'd also observe that if one lives more or less their entire reality in some sort of VR simulation... so what? I can make arguments in both directions (at length, actually but I'll spare you) but it's too rich a question to implicitly assert an answer.
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|14 years ago|reply
The meta-question here is very interesting. At what point do humans controlling their environment cease being humans? So yes, you could sit absolutely still and live a tremendously-rewarding virtual life because you have designed a world that emotionally compels you to never leave. To the rest of us, you look like a potted plant. Does that make you less human? Or, to put differently, if you were completely paralyzed, yet were able to think (I believe they call it "locked in") is there anything wrong with you that the rest of us should care about and fix? Is how we define being a human inexorably linked to physical social participation? I believe so, but I'm not comfortable with my own line of reasoning here.
Note that I don't have a problem with us evolving into something else. My only concern is that we acknowledge what's happening so that we can realistically talk about it. If we are evolving, then there will be a selection function that we had get pretty damn good at meeting. I imagine that function is going to be the ability to turn the system off from time to time. What I see instead is millions of folks who spend more time than even they are happy with plugged in and are in a great bit of denial as to exactly what social effect that is having. If you ask me, the singularity is already here. We just can't see it.
[+] [-] BenoitEssiambre|14 years ago|reply
Simple economics tell us that as population grows and natural resources are depleted, real physical goods and services will become scarce and costly especially compared to virtual ones which seem to be created with a shrinking amount of matter and energy.
The implication of this are interesting for the evolution of humanity.
Will reality become a luxury, where the common people will be able to afford nothing more than basic subsistence including low cost per calorie diet and a few cubic meters of real word dwelling? Will only the rich be able to afford the additional matter and energy to provide for further floor space, better food and physical travel?
The cost difference between virtual experiences and real world experiences might become so large that most people will prefer to get the better bang for the buck available virtually.
What are the implication for jobs, how will value be created and distributed when people spend most of their time in a virtual world? Here, I don't mean just entertainment goods that are only worth something in the context of a game. I mean things like education, artistic virtual experiences, virtual social events, virtual performances, movies, music, etc. The virtual economy will be greatly influenced by intellectual property laws and I assume, a lot of these goods will have to include DRM for sustaining jobs even if the goods are really cheap compared to real world goods.
What activities will give meaning to human life? Intellectual endeavors, artistic endeavors and socializing should remain low cost and may still offer a lot of depth and complexity to people's lives, especially as the tools to support these activities become better. In fact, if you evaluate your life by the breath of ideas, relationships and arts you are able to master, a life lived virtually might become more fulfilling than one encumbered by the limits of the real world.
How will serious social relationships evolve in virtual worlds? What are the implications for reproduction?
In a virtual world, it is going to be really easy to move away when not getting along with a community. It will also be really easy to create new communities for like minded individuals. People might not have to get along they might just isolate themselves in smaller communities. What are the implications for the way politics will be performed. What are the implication for law enforcement? What are the implications for war and how will all this spill over into the real world? The communities will still have to collaborate to maintain real world security and defense.
Then there is the issue of the physical body's health needs. Will the human body be able to adapt to this type of life?
Will resource scarcity push humanity to a virtual existence? When you look at people living in their parents' basement spending all their time online, sometimes because of the lack of economic opportunity in the real world, it sure makes it look like the transition has already begun.
[+] [-] 3pt14159|14 years ago|reply
I was in an engineering class called "sustainable development" at Waterloo and got into an argument with my professor about a "maximum human population". My point, that I still hold to this day, was that the average extra human will increase our capacity for more humans by more than one. Whether it is from space cities or virtual realities we are not a virus that the movie The Matrix portrays us to be. We will expand to the stars, the sea, the deep earth, and other realities; whether they be on silicon chips or other dimensions. Just wait until Gataca comes or mind-computer interfaces. The average IQ in 2011 terms will be 150.
[+] [-] loup-vaillant|14 years ago|reply
Even if you don't believe your upload wouldn't truly be you, you might take the option, if the alternative is certain death by starvation. Better die and spawn a ghost, than die and leave nothing.
Now it's not all pretty: if you assume a capitalistic, competitive environment, one could set up "interesting" forms of exploitation. An upload could be saved, stopped, restarted, spied on, tortured… Robin Hanson produced quite interesting (though horrifying) speculation about how such a world might look like.
[+] [-] markbao|14 years ago|reply
Think about how you work today: you sit down in front of a screen. You sit there for 5, 8, 12 hours and stare at a screen to do your work. Millions of desk-workers everywhere have become people staring at screens for about 8 hours a day, playing with a handheld screen when not at a desk.
A large part of it is because technology is enabling and seen as a benefit, but that doesn't detract from the fact that it is an invasive effect in the lives of the first world. As technology gets better, becomes more enabling, and allows us to do more with it, I don't see that stopping.
[+] [-] cafard|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] badhairday|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wazzupflow|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wladimir|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] econnors|14 years ago|reply
In the book, the protagonist discovers a world in which people have abandoned reality in favor of a more enjoyable virtual world. As a result, society declines to the point where the real world is crumbling down.
Not saying that's what will happen, but it's an interesting read.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]