From: kim3@husc10.harvard.edu (Jason Kim)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.cyberpunk,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Virtual Ethics
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:23:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Apr8.212353.10864
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

Some random thoughts...

In article <1992Apr8.204032.24041@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> wooledge@ces.cwru.edu (Gregory Wooledge) writes:

>Our technology is increasing, and our consumption of role-model images is
>becoming more widespread.  But such trends have existed throughout history
>and they haven't destroyed us yet.  I'd consider it to be simply a
>manifestation of man's desire to improve himself.

I would hardly call Molly Millions or Johnny Mnemonic role models who will
help society improve itself :).


My opinion is that when the day comes (in about 100 years!) that the world is
connected by a virtual reality network, people will no longer feel the need to 
improve their physical appearances, as their interpersonal relationships will
be based mainly on their cyberspace aliases. You see, first of all, 
since in a VR world a person can take whatever form he or she desires, the
feeling that we present-day people experience of not being able to make our-
selves look good will disappear. If Mary has what it takes to attract Bubba
and she knows it, her confidence in herself will be such that she won't care
about not looking like Kathy Ireland in the physical world.

Which brings me to my second hypothesis. I think that everyone on such a net
will learn to value the *substantial* things in others, rather than just their 
physical charm (insubstantial because it is accidental and temporary)
thus leading to a greater maturity of society. I think this will be especially
true in light of the fact that *everyone* will be able to make themselves
look "perfect" (by modern standards). If everyone can look like the ideal
model, then the value of having an ideal appearance drops to nothing, and the
value of looks as a criterion of personal worth drops to nothing.

Maybe I'm wrong about this (I just made it up), but wouldn't it be nice if it
came true?


>   Consider 
>   VR to be an evolutionary obstacle.  Those who are trapped by it to the
>   exclusion of real-life activities will die off.  Those who aren't will
>   survive.  It's simply natural selection in a new realm.  (YES, I am a
>   "social Darwinist".)

Social Darwinism is a sham and a blight to Darwin's good name. In this context
it is obvious why. Firstly, why would one "die off" just because he or she
spends a lot of time in VR? I mean really. Are we to believe that "VR
junkies" would just let themselves *starve to death* because they lose track
of the time they spend on the Net? Or that their bodies would just atrophy
to a point of no return? I mean, what is the argument here? The word "selection"
in Darwin's thesis means *death*.

More importantly, what is it that makes anyone think a propensity for
computers/VR is *inheritable*? Inheritance is a prerequisite for "natural
selection" in the Darwinist sense. Based on observations of my own family, I
would hardly think that being excited by new technology is a *genetic* trait.

Even if it were, Mendel's Law of Segregation (remember Hardy-Weinberg?) would
prevent such a "social evolution" from completely eradicating the "VR-lover"
gene from the human gene pool for about a thousand generations.

Jason Y. Kim
kim3@husc9.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk