maddox@blake.acs.washington.edu (Tom Maddox) (12/11/89)
My curiosity has been piqued by the recent discussions concerning appropriate distinctions in the various cyber/space/punk/tech/virtual-worlds forums. This posting is my attempt to sort out some of the implications for myself. We have at present alt.cyberpunk, alt.cyberspace, alt.cyberpunk-tech; we have sci.virtual-worlds proposed. There has been an attempt to separate "scientific" from "lifestyles" discussions; "realistic" from "fictive" virtual worlds; cyberpunk from cyberspace, cyberspace from virtual reality. All these groups and distinctions behind them have reference to the ever more effective and complex interactions among humans and computers. Some of the technology appears far off, other does not, but we do not understand the consequences of even the very close technology--virtual imaging glasses, for instance, seem to me likely to be a comer with many possibilities, which will engage social and economic realities, which in turn will drive the technology, and so forth. Given this necessary interplay among complex forces, it seems certain to me that reality will not observe the distinctions many of the people discussing these issues want to maintain; further, that any strong understanding of these issues will require thinking about the systematic interplay of forces. Let me make a simple point in this regard: much of the interest in current virtual reality technology comes from the military; any attempt to understand the future of the technology that does not take this into account will be crippled. Many of the people directly concerned with the design and implementation of such technologies do not want to engage such concerns. They want to know what can be done and how to do it. What will happen next, many of them say, is not their particular concern. However, for most of us, what happens next is what *is* interesting. Will we have relatively more humane wars with few human soldiers or total wars with horribly efficient non-human soldiers? Will we have virtual realities geared to helping us explore the boundaries of our humanity, or virtual realities that encourage us to become expert masturbators? What are the factors that will shape the development, implementation, and use of the technologies? What will be the social destiny of virtual reality? I sense, however, that insofar as the techies smell the imminent possibility of virtual reality, they want to banish such concerns. In much of the recently-stated eagerness to get to the technical nitty-gritty, I sense a welcome relief: after all, humanity's interaction with this stuff is so *messy*, while technical issues, though complex and difficult, are clean. Recently there have been a number of statements dismissive of Gibson and fiction as inadequate to do the job--and of course that's true if one is concerned only technique. However, contrary to one assertion, Gibson has done more than give cyberspace a name; he also gave it a local habitation--he showed that whatever the nature of the technology, it will be employed in all-too-human ways. And contrary to another assertion, cyberpunk is not lacking in moral effect: the world of the Sprawl, for instance, is itself a complex moral text; and I would also offer a few of my own stories--"Snake Eyes" perhaps most directly--as attempts to extrapolate the moral context of human-computer connection. Maybe I'm saying little more than this: don't attempt to clean up the cyberpunk/space/virtual reality act too quickly. The fundamental distinctions, technically and otherwise, are not yet clear, and many of the most interesting things that will happen with this technology will be generated out of its interplay with intensely human concerns. Some of the virtual reality folks want to banish fictioneers to the other room so they can get on with it, and that's fine, but I'd remind them that our voices will ultimately be heard. I'd also remind them that any attempt at this point in history to think of science and technology in isolation from their social and political context is a form of intense myopia. The street has its uses for technology, sure; so do the corporations, so does the Department of Defense. [If you want to flame me for any of this, do us all a favor: use mail. I really don't want to be at the center of another flame-war in alt.cyber/whatever.]
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) (12/12/89)
In article <4860@blake.acs.washington.edu> maddox@blake.acs.washington.edu (Tom Maddox) writes: > > We have at present alt.cyberpunk, alt.cyberspace, alt.cyberpunk-tech; >we have sci.virtual-worlds proposed. There has been an attempt to separate >"scientific" from "lifestyles" discussions; "realistic" from "fictive" virtual >worlds; cyberpunk from cyberspace, cyberspace from virtual reality. >What are the factors that will shape the development, >implementation, and use of the technologies? What will be the social destiny >of virtual reality? > Recently there have been a number of statements >dismissive of Gibson and fiction as inadequate to do the job--and of course >that's true if one is concerned only technique. However, contrary to one >assertion, Gibson has done more than give cyberspace a name; he also gave it >a local habitation--he showed that whatever the nature of the technology, it >will be employed in all-too-human ways. And contrary to another assertion, >cyberpunk is not lacking in moral effect: the world of the Sprawl, for >instance, is itself a complex moral text; and I would also offer a few of >my own stories--"Snake Eyes" perhaps most directly--as attempts to extrapolate >the moral context of human-computer connection. > > Maybe I'm saying little more than this: don't attempt to clean up >the cyberpunk/space/virtual reality act too quickly. The fundamental >distinctions, technically and otherwise, are not yet clear, and many of the >most interesting things that will happen with this technology will be generated >out of its interplay with intensely human concerns. >The street has its uses for technology, >sure; so do the corporations, so does the Department of Defense. I think discussion of the social effects of virtual reality would be completely compatible with the charter of sci.virtual-worlds (or sci.cyberspace, or whatever). After all, if social science doesn't belong in sci.* then why do sci.econ and sci.psychology exist? On the other hand, I don't think sci.virtual-worlds should become a free-fire zone for moralistic flamewars between hawks and doves, socialists and libertarians, law-and-order types and anti-establishment cyperpunks, etc. It's one thing to speculate on how virtual reality will be used as a weapon or as a drug, but it's another to pontificate on how the former is the result of "the bloodthirsty military-industrial complex" or how the latter is the legacy of "the mindless hippie generation". _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________
kazim@Apple.COM (Alex Kazim) (12/13/89)
I have to agree with Tom on the separation of alt.cyberX. Science Fiction is an amazing tool for letting people see just what kind of effect this neato technology will have. Sure it'll change the world, but for the better or worse? For those of you who've seen _Fat Man and Little Boy_, the crisis of conscience the scientists have at the end seems a little late. Did it not occur to any of them just what they were creating, that this wasn't an exercise in mental masturbation? Do computers help? Do computers allow certain unnamed chemical companies to build better plants (in Bhopal), or allow them to make more money by building cheaper, less safe plants. Who pulled the trigger, the gun or you? ========================================================================== Alex Kazim, Apple Computer These are my own opinions and not connected with the directors or shareholders of Apple Computer Inc. Furthermore, all references to large chemical companies with plants in India that killed people are ficticious. ==========================================================================
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (12/13/89)
In article <1989Dec11.182321.10799@cs.rochester.edu>, yamauchi@cs (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >I think discussion of the social effects of virtual reality would be >completely compatible with the charter of sci.virtual-worlds (or >sci.cyberspace, or whatever). Almost anything would be compatible with the charter of sci.virtual-worlds. The charter was a mess, and the group if created will probably be a mess. I suspect a moderated group with better defined charter would be preferable. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "Last week in a dream I gave a fellow my shirt buttons to differentiate and the fellow ran away with them." -- Engels
bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) (12/13/89)
As I told him in email, I think Tom Maddox mischaracterizes those
actually working on virtual reality. More than most technologists,
they are aware of the possible magnitude of the consequences of
this technology and, almost without exception, are clear on the
point that they are working to prevent its use in inhumane ways.
This may be one of the first times in history where a technology
was thoroughly debated before it was fully developed, let alone
implemented. Rather than despair of virtual reality's future,
it's time to amplify the discussion of how we can buffer it against
exploitive uses and encourage its humanity-serving potential.
--
BOB JACOBSON, Associate Director, Human Interface Technology Laboratory
University of Washington (FU-20), Seattle, WA 98195 USA
(206) 543-5075 (voice), 543-5380 (fax) * bluefire@well.uucp
>> "We can do virtually anything." <<merkel@hriso.ATT.COM (Thomas Merkel) (12/14/89)
In article <14973@well.UUCP> bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) writes: >This may be one of the first times in history where a technology >was thoroughly debated before it was fully developed, let alone >implemented. Rather than despair of virtual reality's future, >it's time to amplify the discussion of how we can buffer it against >exploitive uses and encourage its humanity-serving potential. With other technological innovations of this century there have been unanticipated consequences, even when the subject was thoroughly debated by those involved. There may be some other innovation that we are unaware of that will be made easy or cheap or practical by virtual reality, and the result will be something we can't anticipate today. Only hindsight is 20/20. -Tom -- Tom Merkel att!hriso!merkel merkel@hriso.ATT.COM 201-898-3547 eschew obfuscation
markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) (12/15/89)
In article <14973@well.UUCP>, bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) writes: > > As I told him in email, I think Tom Maddox mischaracterizes those > actually working on virtual reality. More than most technologists, > they are aware of the possible magnitude of the consequences of > this technology and, almost without exception, are clear on the ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ > point that they are working to prevent its use in inhumane ways. > ... Even the Navy people in Hawaii? (see the december Scientific American). Even the defense contractors doing that pilot helmet? Even the people who program flight simulators for the Air Force? Even if it doesn't have the Virtual Reality label on it, it's still the same technology. markz@ssc.uucp
bluefire@well.UUCP (Bob Jacobson) (12/22/89)
Touche, Mark. Yup, there are those who see in new technology only
better ways to conquer and destroy. Even with VR. But at least
the discussion is out in the open. And will remain so. A bigger
fear for me, bigger than the dwindling defense establishment, is
the use of VR for pummeling the public with commercials and media
pacifiers.
To each, his or her own favorite boogeyman.
--
BOB JACOBSON, Associate Director, Human Interface Technology Laboratory
University of Washington (FU-20), Seattle, WA 98195 USA
(206) 543-5075 (voice), 543-5380 (fax) * bluefire@well.uucp
>> "We can do virtually anything." <<