Four years ago, Bill Joy warned that some of the most exciting new technologies on the horizon - genetic engineering, nanotechnology, robotics - could kill us all. That horizon has gotten appreciably closer, and Larry Lessig has recently reminded us of the dangers. He also put them in the context of contemporary international relations, which, obviously, don't offer much solace about the chances that a disaster will actually happen. In a sure sign we really should think about it all, insurance companies have even begun to hedge the costs. Lessig's analysis of the situation suggests that no police powers, however intrusive, could possibly protect us. GNR technologies will be well within reach of small, otherwise unremarkable groups of dedicated killers. And if we can't control the killers, it seems, our only option is to reduce their incentive to kill us. That's becoming a tough row to hoe.
I'd like to argue for a third option: Run away. Run away into the comparatively safe haven of virtual worlds.
As the intensity of the Iraq affair deepens, it is worth reflecting how much safer we would be were we known to others only through our online activity. Replace sites of congregation with virtual counterparts; build virtual Manhattans and Disneylands; hold meetings in virtual hotels and have trysts in virtual brothels. Spread the people across the globe and let them connect to one another through avatars alone. What can al-Qaeda do? Corpse-camp us until they're banned?
We hear much of the health dangers of net-dependent lifestyles. Netizens are said to be addicted, overweight, asocial, emotionally stunted. Yet we've learned that, in fact, Tinysex and everything else that happens online really does have an emotional richness to it, a richness that will be enhanced as game design begins to take advantage of affective computing. The isolated computer nerd has been replaced by the deeply-enmeshed multiplayer gamer and the social software maven. Interfaces like Eye Toy and DDR point to a future of gamer fitness. Just link these interfaces to Counter-Strike and watch as ripped gamer teens begin to pummel their RL TV-junkie adversaries into submission. As for addiction - if, given the above, everyone worth knowing is online, time offline becomes the problematic category.
OK, so if we move into cyberspace, we lose the body-to-body thing. Deplorable. Or is it?
Lessig, when referring to the horrors of GNR terrorism, describes them metaphorically as a nasty form of P2P activity. It's an interesting metaphor but overlooks a critical implication: GNR is a problem for P2P between bodies, not motherboards. Eliminate bodily P2P networks and you'll solve a number of problems. No dense accumulations of living, breathing souls for terrorists to annihilate. No need to worry about rogue nanobots or genetically engineered critters spreading through human contact. No need to travel to a place like Iraq to find work as a contractor. Indeed, no need to send armies there, or anywhere. No need to drive around in those gas-guzzling SUVs that keep us all entangled in the affairs of a nutty culture. Indeed, no need for dependence on any globally-concentrated power source; virtual world nets run on local power, not oil.
Yes, if we move online, we will still have to worry about software viruses, power outages, and spam. There will be griefing to deal with. And we'll miss the human touch. But perhaps the day is coming when such things will be seen as the lesser evils.
Recent Comments