"Second Life Wife": Real People, Real Emotions, Simulated World

It's been a while since I've written about Second Life. Like, over a year and a half. I think.

It's not that I've forgotten. It's a hot topic on many of the Methodists blogs I read. And I like what they have to say. As long as there is a community, online or in the physical world, there is a need for a Christian presence.

But I heard something that took me back to some of my earlier discussions (leave it to NPR). In a discussion of the "virtual world", the issue of marriage in Second Life was brought up. People, some married in the real world, others single, are getting married.

One of the arguments for this is that on the site, you get to know people for who they are. Thus, love in SL is somehow more real than love in the real world. No distractions of race, age, gender, disability, etc. At the same time, though, and what the piece failed to mention, is the ease with which you can claim to be someone else in this virtual world (or any, be it a message board, World of Warcraft, etc.). All it takes is a little imagination and a descent memory. Which isn't entirely bad. It can be fun to be somebody else.

But then comes the other person, who falls in "love" with this fake person. Those emotions can be very real and very hurt.

And then there are the married people. Who get married to someone other than their real spouse in SL. The emotional investment inherent in a marriage, even a virtual one, can be just as damaging to a relationship as adultery. Some might even call it adultery.

Don't get me wrong. I know that there are people who take all forms of social interaction, be it a coffee date or Second Life, too seriously (or not seriously enough). And I know I shouldn't let those people ruin the form of interaction.

Which is probably why the presence of Christian churches in SL are so important - the emotions are real, the relationships are real, and the grace of Christ is real.

Rock on.

The HotList

This just in from Facebook: You can now use brand names and icons to let people figure you out.

"Help people know you better by showing logos of the brands you identify with. Compare what you like with your friends....Show people what you are all about. Better than Facebook's info section because this uses logos, and no one reads your profile anyways ;)"

Facebook: Taking sign-exchange value to a new level. Reinforcing the trend that all Greeks love Abercrombie, all black people listen to rap, and every man, woman, and child in the south loves their Ford truck.

Seriously, though, what the crap? Have we gotten that lazy, that we now reduce our entire self-image down to corporate icons? I can just see the next wave of college applications: Please, describe yourself in twenty brand-names or less.

There is also the new Lamefactor function: "Anonymously judge your Facebook friends."
And Rendezbook, self-described "Speed-dating for Facebook." A simulation of simulated relationships! Brilliant! This even saves you the awkwardness of having to tell someone how you feel, because if both people are interested in the same option (out of Friendship, Relationship, or Random Fling) they are emailed confirming the "feeling".
Not to mention the Compass, which uses ten questions to tell you where you are in the detailed political spectrum of Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative.
And last, but not least, we arrive at the Causes feature. You can give a crap about the rest of the world without ever lifting a finger!

Some of the new features are great. I love the Extended Info section. It gives me a place to list some things I think are important about me: Favorite authors, places, philosophers, foods, artists, you name it. But then again, with the HotList, why should I even bother? Brand names can do all of the talking. I could use the Info area to discuss my politics. Or I could answer ten questions and they'd make a picture of a compass for that, too. Now I'm really desperate. I should just list my favorite friends and girls that I'm attracted to. No, wait. There are features for those. I can just vote on my friends and women, and if I'm lucky, things will work out that way.

Facebook: Eliminating the need for words and human interaction since May 2007. It can all be simulated anyway.

Rock on.

Another News Round-Up...

The last time I did this, I had the misfortune of reporting the news of the Virginia Tech massacre. I am pleased to say that this time, I don't have anything nearly as gruesome to report on.

In the presidential debate, Giuliani and Edwards both hold stock in companies doing business in Sudan. Both claim they were unaware of the investments, both worth thousands of dollars. While both candidates say they are shocked and will quickly sell the stock, this raises the question of why aren't our politicians looking at where there money is going? And if they don't know what they aren't on top of their own investments, will they show similar care with the nation's finances?

Today was doubly rough for Rudy, who was rejected by James Dobson. Whether or not the founder of Focus on the Family should have a say in who the Republican candidate will be is still up for debate, but for Dobson's many supporters, the former mayor is on his way out. Giuliani, who attempted to defend his stance on abortion at a Baptist college in Texas, is having trouble courting the religious right. Despite leading in some polls, this may cost him the election (the same way it won the election for Reagan and George W).

As far as the religious right is concerned, they are mourning the loss of one of the prominent members, Jerry Falwell, who died yesterday. While I disagree with Mr. Falwell on many issues, I pray for comfort for his family and friends.

In other political news, a bipartisan group of politicians have agreed on an immigration reform plan. Official debate begins on Monday, though many congressman from both sides have criticized it as either too harsh or not harsh enough (generally a good sign that it's a moderate proposal).

In Hollywood today, Paris Hilton (I want to cry for actually putting her in my blog) dropped her appeal for her less than two month prison term. What gets me is the one-liner near the end, "She could have a cellmate." On the other side of the legal spectrum, Lindsay Lohan will not be charged with grand theft after it was ruled that there is not enough evidence to move forward with allegations of her stealing a shirt. I'm sure that somewhere, a preteen girl is excited over this.

Again, I do this to take a look at what our media tells us is important. If I'm reading this correctly, the only things in politics is the presidential election, illegal immigration, and a congressional stalemate over Iraq. Meanwhile, an important preacher died and two of America's royalty are having some legal troubles. Never mind that the presidential election is more than a year away. Never mind that while immigration is an important issue, the country has some other major issues to deal with (whatever happened to the concern over Social Security?). Never mind that the use of war as a means for political gain (on both sides) is disgusting. Never mind that many Republicans have changed their opinions on Mr. Falwell to court his followers. And never mind that the people young Americans care about the most are over-privileged and over-paid and yet under-talented. Never mind that there is actually more in the world than the US, its border with Mexico, and Iraq.

It is said that the media shapes the minds of the people. But it is also said that the people tell the media what to play. So where did this all begin? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? And where will it end? When will we finally decide to wake up and realize that our culture is nothing more than a simulation, a copy, and a poor one of that, of the ancient Romans, with our bread and circuses (bread replaced with fast food and chariots replaced with bad movies), fed to us in thirty second sound bites? And we thought that the Matrix was just a movie...

Rock on.

SimU

My discussion on Second Life is back.

From a friend of mine who works in the Tech Department (the same one who draws Percent Man), a professor here at the University of Georgia has decided to hold classes in Second Life.

I have been a little worried about online classes (which are done in chat rooms). There are a few advantages to holding class on SL (accounts are free and textbooks can be distributed online for free), the idea of holding a class in The Sims on crack is still a little creepy and counter-productive. My English teacher said that computers in the class room are a win-win situation. Teachers don't have to teach and students don't have to learn. I would imagine that the same would apply to classrooms in computers, if not more so.

Rock on.

The Simulated Economy

The economy is normally one of the biggest voting issues for presidential elections. Anyone will tell you that. But have you ever thought about our economy? And the global economy as a whole, for that matter?

Look at a dollar bill, or whatever piece of currency you have laying around. What is it worth? Can you take it to the government and get a dollar's worth of gold or silver or anything for it? Not anymore. Our currency is entirely theoretical. The dollar's value is derived from faith that when you give it to someone, you get something back for it. Dollar in soda machine, Coke out of soda machine. Five dollars to cashier, cheeseburger from cashier.

Bonds are based on the idea that you give money to the government and you get it back. A currency of currency, in a sense.

Stocks are just the same. The value of stock (non-prefered stock, that is) is dependent not only on how the company performs, but also (and more so) on the supply of the stock. How many people are buying it? How many people are selling it? You give money to a company, and assuming that the company does not fail, you can sell it to another person, assuming that that person is willing to pay for it.

Keeping this in mind, it makes sense that the currency in the game Second Life should have an impact on the currency in the "real" world. Currency in Second Life is a currency of currency as well. You give the Second Life makers your money, assuming that you will get Second Life money back. You use the cyber SL money assuming that you will get SL goods. You sell those goods, knowing that you will get SL money. You transfer the cyber bucks to "real" bucks, assuming that when you give the "real" money to someone, you will get something back.

In short, this cyber economy is every bit as real as the US economy.

Rock on.

Edit: It has been brought to my attention that this is the nature of economy. The point was made that gold has an assigned value, just like the dollar. After pondering it for a while, I realized that gold was used as a currency because it was a commodity, just like salt. A gold-based currency is a version of a barter system.

The Rat Brains Are Taking Over!

As if an online game that impacts the economy wasn’t enough, researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology are growing cultures of brain cells from rodents on electrodes. These electrodes are hooked up to robots, which are, in turn, able to navigate mazes, follow objects around a room, and even draw.

To me, this screams I, Robot. Or even possibly Borg. Sci Fi aside, what is the use of this? The possibility of transplanting human brains into robots (yea for living forever!) is ruled out as the cells must be grown on the electrodes. Creating drones raises more questions then stem cell research (surely, having a human mind, and therefore, soul, qualifies one as human).

So, real cyber pets? Another "real" simulacrum?

Rock on.

The Ultimate Simulacrum

It started with epic poetry, I think. Yeah. Using fiction to escape reality. No matter how bad things got, you could always escape to the accounts of Gilgamesh or Odysseus. From there, it spread to plays (why imagine what happened when you can see it?) After plays come movies. With movies, you can see the exact same play multiple times. And the dawning of VHS, DVD, and downloads allow you to see it whenever you want to.

Somewhere along the history of fiction comes the game. Little kids heard a story or saw a play and decided to make it their own (every kid has been there at some point). These games advanced, slowly at first, with role playing games, where you got to build the character up over time, making your own little world with your friends. These eventually gave way to computer games (the first games were RPGs where you typed in commands). These led to Sim City, which, like plays, kept the player from having to imagine the setting. And then the game the very quickly swept the nation: The Sims. You could create a character, give him a job, let him go on dates, or anything you imagined. After a few years, the game became available online, so that you could play with people across the globe.

And now: the final stage. A simulation so far removed from the original, from real life, that it has become the original, that it actually affects real life. Second Life. It is The Sims, only it is played with real money. You exchange US dollars for virtual money and with that, you can open a virtual business, sell virtual realty, or buy virtual clothing. There are over one million players. People make six digit salaries playing this game. Congress is even debating whether or not to tax income made playing it.

So we have gone from reality, through a complete cycle of simulacra (a copy of a copy), to a hyperreality ("The simulation of something which never really existed." - Baudrillard) so real that it has an impact on the economy and the government.

We are now faced with a question. Not "Where is the line?", as I think we noticed the line when we crossed it (when people started waiting in lines a week long and getting in fights for the latest gaming systems). The real question is "How do we get back over the line?" Or are we so far gone as a nation that our culture will move from Hollywood (itself a simulation of the royalty of Europe, sans bloodlines) to online?

Rock on.