©Pixabay
Author profile picture

To be honest, if it were up to me, I’d get rid of it all.Stay right here, you shouldn’t go all virtual.” Those are the words of a Flemish couple approached on the street by a television crew from the Flemish Public Broadcasting (VRT) about the metaverse. “The what?”

While watching the entire clip, an instant ‘Groundhog Day’ feeling overtook me. Where had I heard this before? In another excerpt, the same discourse on virtuality was presented by entrepreneurs and strategists as enrichment and hype, but from the mouths of such a couple was labeled an impoverishment?

Nowhere does the broadcasted clip make the connection to any earlier developments, such as the hype surrounding the three-dimensional virtual world Second Life in 2007. That was a missed opportunity. Back then, people were also amazed by virtual museums, virtual parties and virtual concerts where you could go with your avatar, dressed according to the latest virtual fashion trends. Fifteen years later, the metaverse is being reported on with the same level of astonishment. At the same time, paying ‘real’ money for virtual property is really nothing new, nor is a ‘sandbox’, where you can experiment and design to your heart’s content, or ‘real’ companies that set up virtual offices on 3D immersive platforms.

Virtuality as an enrichment

Nuance disappears when you present technological developments in a black and white way: Virtuality as an enrichment (don’t miss out on this opportunity!) versus seeing it as an impoverishment (stay away!). The concept of hype versus rejection is not a valuable framework for defining these technological evolutions. So many expectations were projected onto Second Life at the time that it was impossible to live up to them. The idea that virtuality would only lead to an impoverished world has long been debunked. Online experiences are simply part of our experienced reality nowadays. Online and offline identities are tightly intertwined. The corona crisis has just made it very clear how valuable online contacts are, especially when we are physically cut off from each other.

Since Facebook announced its change of name to Meta back in late October, renewed attention has been paid to the concept of the metaverse. Of course, the comparison with Second Life is not entirely justified. Unlike in 2007, the focus of the surrounding messaging is (thankfully) much less on sex. And unlike the developers of Second Life, Linden Lab, Facebook/Meta has a lot more money to invest in bringing together different kinds of ‘realities’ – virtual reality, augmented reality, physical reality – and combining them with different experiences, such as shopping, meeting up with friends, working or gaming. Moreover, Facebook/Meta via WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, Oculus, etc., is already an integral part of our daily lives, so the threshold or reluctance to be a part of it is much lower. Facebook already has a staggering 3.6 billion users. And the world also looks different than it did 15 years ago as far as cryptocurrencies are concerned.

Phone booths

The Flemish couple is reminiscent of the well-known clip “Using mobile phones in 1998” from Dutch program maker Frans Bromet, in which he took to the streets with a camera to ask Dutch people whether they were planning to buy a mobile phone. Each and every one of them thought it unnecessary, for reasons that were quite normal at the time. After all, there really were still phone booths in the streets.

Also read: Why Zuckerberg and Jobs kept their children away from their own creations

In 2019, a camera crew from the Dutch TV show ‘De Wereld Draait Door‘ tracked down the same people. It turned out that they all had bought smartphones since then. You simply cannot imagine what you will one day find ‘normal’ and how you will adapt your behavior accordingly. In fact, anyone who never imagined that they would ever need a smartphone will most likely drive back home now if they forget to take that small gadget with them. The couple who disapproves of the metaverse in this piece of reporting will probably be dancing as avatars with their grandchildren in a hip virtual club in the metaverse 10 years from now.

No, there is no need to return to a completely offline life and abolish the virtual one (which is not possible at all anyway). More than anything, it is important to follow developments as closely as possible and take a nuanced but critical approach to them. And to have a healthy dose of curiosity. In 2014, I earned my PhD on a study about morality and virtuality, which also involved spending a lot of time in Second Life. Time to dust off my avatar.

About this column

In a weekly column, alternately written by Eveline van Zeeland, Eugène Franken, JP Kroeger, Katleen Gabriels, Carina Weijma, Bernd Maier-Leppla, Willemijn Brouwer and Colinda de Beer, Innovation Origins tries to figure out what the future will look like. These columnists, sometimes joined by guest bloggers, are all working in their own way to find solutions to the problems of our time. So tomorrow will be good. Here are all the previous articles.

Support us!

Innovation Origins is an independent news platform that has an unconventional revenue model. We are sponsored by companies that support our mission: to spread the story of innovation. Read more.

At Innovation Origins, you can always read our articles for free. We want to keep it that way. Have you enjoyed our articles so much that you want support our mission? Then use the button below:

Doneer

Personal Info