
Computers Will Entertain Us to Death - aaronwhite
http://restrictionisexpression.com/post/13921641575/computers-will-entertain-us-to-death
======
cturner
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.

~~~
jfoutz
If you're looking, dwarf fortress is pretty neat. It's all ascii art, but the
underlying mechanics are fantastically complicated.

~~~
politician
You, sir, are a cruel cruel drug pusher. I cannot let this naked praise for DF
go without a warning: you will straight up lose days to this game if you try
to figure it out. I lost, literally lost, 96 hours to DF before I wised up and
purged it from my hard drive. Even so, its delicious caverns of dirt-to-be-
excavated and dwarfs to be managed still tempts me, beckons me back. So far,
I've held fast.

tl;dr: df is cocaine

------
scurfuration
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?

------
Tichy
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.

~~~
a3_nm
> 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.

~~~
Tichy
So art should never be consumed, only be created? If somebody listens to a
song, he is wasting his time, but then what is the point of creating a song?

------
digitalsushi
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.

~~~
boredguy8
<http://localroger.com/prime-intellect/mopiidx.html>

    
    
      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."

~~~
klipt
Without God/Prime Intellect to keep these people blissfully alive, though,
natural selection will quickly check this kind of progression.

Once you short circuit your pleasure systems - which evolved to keep you alive
and reproducing - you'll soon be displaced by a species with better self
control.

------
drblast
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.

------
Vivtek
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.

~~~
AznHisoka
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.

~~~
rjknight
Speak for yourself.

Most people aren't evolved to resist serious strains of flu, but when an
epidemic happens the next generation will be those who _were_. There are
probably people who are perfectly capable of adapting to virtual reality
worlds right now, just as there are those who can avoid getting obese despite
the presence of vastly calorific foods and can avoid mental diseases despite
the highly unusual (from a historical perspective) nature of modern society.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> Most people aren't evolved to resist serious strains of flu, but when an
> epidemic happens the next generation will be those who were.

It's true because diseases _kill_ unprepared and leave only the (more-less)
adapted. So far neither obesity nor computer games were successful in killing
people on the mass scale fast enough. Also, we're actively engineering the
computer games to be as immersing as possible. If a 'resistant generation'
pops up, it'll probably at some point engineer addicting games for itself.

~~~
onemoreact
Evolutionary speaking sterilization is as effective as death. And several
diseases do reduce fertility which creates evolutionary pressure on par with
deaths.

------
kpennell
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.

------
Zirro
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.

------
feor
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.

------
xibernetik
This reminds me a lot of this article: The Acceleration of Addictiveness
(<http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html>).

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
Clay Shirky also describes 'society's collective bender' in more optimistic
terms: <http://google.com/search?q=cognitive+surplus>

------
stuffihavemade
You might want to consider changing the lime green color background to
something more neutral.

~~~
aaronwhite
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)

~~~
tycho77
As long as we're nitpicking, you are using "it's" incorrectly. "It's" is not
the possessive form of "it", it is a contraction of "it is". The word you are
looking for is "its". Usually doesn't annoy too much but you do this twice in
the first paragraph.

~~~
aaronwhite
Fixed; forgot to proof read that paragraph, thanks Tycho. Always up for
improvements no matter how small.

------
Jach
> 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.

~~~
sliverstorm
Melatonin doesn't replace sleep, it makes you sleepy.

~~~
Jach
Ah, I read the original wish as "sleep in a healthy way", instead of "skip
meals or sleep". I probably need some sleep myself.

------
RyanMcGreal
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.

~~~
aaronwhite
How uncultured am I? :) Haven't read/heard of that, but will seek out, thanks!

------
jerf
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.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
_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.

~~~
Apocryphon
If we were to take the concept of a VR "thought is action" simulacrum
seriously, I think that maybe current standards for what is seen as socially
good can still apply there- it is better to "produce" so that others may
"consume", than to primarily consume yourself. So maybe VR actors, musicians,
and coders will still be seen as doing something worthy of more prestige than
typical VR gamers. The only difference between then and now is how much
physical activity your body needs to spend to accomplish that.

------
BenoitEssiambre
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.

~~~
loup-vaillant
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.

~~~
9085
"Better die and spawn a ghost, than die and leave nothing." What's the point
of a ghost? How does this make your situation "better"? Your point is based on
the assumption that death is inherently "bad".

~~~
angelbob
Darwinism suggests that if ghosts can continue to exist (and reproduce?) and
affect the world to create more of themselves (e.g. tell people that it's not
so bad), then they will be selected-for.

Ceasing to exist is, in a strict Darwinian sense, bad. Reproduction and, to an
extent, continued existence are good.

~~~
loup-vaillant
Seconded. It should be noted that some people see making children as a form of
immortality. My own mom thinks along the lines of "what's the point of living
forever, you just have to make children".

I say the immortality of my genes pale in comparison to the immortality of my
thought processes. Even if the copy isn't really "me", it will have the same
influence I could have had if it was. I may have other goals besides not
dying. My ghost would have at least a chance of carrying them out.

------
markbao
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.

~~~
cafard
Well, yes, but 30 years ago I was at a desk staring at sheets of paper.
Working at the computer is better for my posture, etc.

------
badhairday
The lime green background color is killing my eyes. Didn't even read the whole
article.

------
wazzupflow
This kind of stuff always reminds me of Nick Bostram and the "Simulation
Argument" <http://www.simulation-argument.com>

~~~
wladimir
It always reminds me of Nozick's "experience machine" thought experiment.

------
econnors
This article reminds me of one of the Pendragon books:
<http://djmachalebooks.com/books/pendragon/the-reality-bug/>

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.

------
TeMPOraL
It's also known as superstimulus; relevant LW article:
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/h3/superstimuli_and_the_collapse_of_...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/h3/superstimuli_and_the_collapse_of_western/)

------
DanielBMarkham
Obligatory reminder of the article I wrote 3 years ago and posted here,
"Technology is Heroin"
[http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2009/02/technology_is...](http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2009/02/technology_is_h.php)

Good to see people continuing to recognize this troubling fact and the
community trying to come to terms with it.

~~~
boredguy8
I mean, "Amusing Ourselves to Death" was published in 1985, and Nietzsche
wrote in 1874,

    
    
      Increasingly we lose this sense of surprise, so that we are no longer overly
      amazed at anything and, ultimately, find satisfaction in everything—this is 
      what is called historical sensibility, historical cultivation. Stated 
      noneuphemistically: the massive influx of impressions is so great; surprising, 
      barbaric, and violent things press so overpoweringly—'balled up into hideous 
      clumps'—in on the youthful soul; that it can save itself only by taking 
      recourse in premeditated stupidity.
    

So I'm not sure what the point of the "pre-date" claim is. I am curious if
you've come up with any good suggestions on how to 'fix' the problem in those
intervening years, though.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Don't forget Kierkegaard, who made very similar observations well before
Nietzsche.

No doubt there is a very human pattern at work that hasn't changed over the
centuries. Also no doubt that there is a technological amplifier at work as
well.

I look at it like money: having lots of money tends to make you more of what
you already are. So if you're a jerk, being rich is just going to exacerbate
that. In a way, then, being able to handle great wealth is an indication of a
very stable (and perhaps dull) personality.

Technology is doing a very similar thing with distractions. Some folks are
easily distracted. Some are not. As technology improves, people who are less-
easily distracted are finding they are spending more and more of their time
plugged in. The best argument here is self-reports: many people freely
acknowledge that they spend more time plugged in _than they are comfortable
with_.

As far as solutions, I tried a couple myself, along with some volunteers from
HN. Didn't get a lot of traction, sadly. "Purposeful interruptions" was the
line we were pursuing. At the time of the essay, my money was on a new form of
morality taking hold -- that it simply won't be "cool" to spend too much time
physically inert. That hasn't happened, sadly.

PG also wrote an essay a few months after mine along these lines. I keep
hoping that with so many smart people looking at this we will start seeing
some breakthroughs.

~~~
boredguy8
I guess if we were to trace the genealogy of the idea, Plato's Republic has
the words,

    
    
      "Now, the true city is in my opinion the one we just described--a 
      healthy city, as it were. But, if you want to, let's look at a 
      feverish city, too. Nothing stands in the way....This healthy 
      one isn't adequate any more, but must already be gorged with a 
      bulky mass of things."
    

I tried a solution once, too: I threw away my computer.

~~~
shadowfox
How did you decide to acquire it back, if I may ask?

~~~
boredguy8
I never got my laptop back. Eventually I needed a computer again, but for
about 6 months I survived fairly well without one. I guess, for me, it reached
a point of addiction & needed a clean break to recover sanity.

------
paylesworth
See also - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation>

------
gojomo
There's even the theory that addiction to video games helps explain the Fermi
paradox:

<http://www.edge.org/q2007/q07_print.html#miller>

Previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1550112>

~~~
rsanchez1
Excellent, that is an interesting explanation to the Fermi Paradox.

So what we have to do is gamify exploration and conquest and we'll rule the
galaxy within the next thousand years.

------
ctdonath
As if writing verbose rants (mirroring equivalent rants about movies, radio,
books, plays, etc. throughout human history) is somehow a superior activity.

 _the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism
designating it so._

\- Ratatouille

------
gojomo
Perhaps the only thing saving us from enslavement to superstimulus is the
hedonic treadmill.

And vice-versa.

------
maeon3
Hopefully capitalism and women will prevent a disaster by rewarding productive
and diciplined humans with wealth and children.

If a society does not threaten its people with poverty, misery and slavery as
a consiquence to wasting your life on video games, then that society will
crumble to make way for one that does.

~~~
Apocryphon
The point I'm wondering though is will technology make it so that it's just as
easily to accomplish productive tasks from within a physical-less VR
simulation, as it is to play video games? In which case neither producers nor
consumers need to remain in physical reality for long, since they can
accomplish their tasks via thought alone?

In the last few decades we've seen white collar workers become shackled to the
desktop, and then shackled to the internet. Just how many hours a day do any
of us spend away from the Net? How much of the physical world are we missing
compared to our ancestors?

------
mannicken
Quite frankly, ordinary life is not that different from WoW. You go on quests,
you level-up your character through education and courses, and then you earn
points (money) that you can spend on shiny things like cars.

Seriously.

~~~
ajuc
But real life is not balanced, and not fair, and everything takes forever. And
you can't save and load game, so most people are too afraid of failure to try
anything really cool or dangerous.

But they want to feel the achievement so they do it in games, where everything
is fine-tuned to be achievable.

