Well, that's my take on Michael Gerson's article on on-line games.
Gerson compares the libertarian Second Life with the fantasy-based Lord of the Rings Online.
But Second Life is more consequential than its moral failures. It is, in fact, a large-scale experiment in libertarianism. Its residents can do and be anything they wish. There are no binding forms of community, no responsibilities that aren't freely chosen and no lasting consequences of human actions. In Second Life, there is no human nature at all, just human choices.
And what do people choose? Well, there is some good live music, philanthropic fundraising, even a few virtual churches and synagogues. But the main result is the breakdown of inhibition. Second Life, as you'd expect, is highly sexualized in ways that have little to do with respect or romance. There are frequent outbreaks of terrorism, committed by online anarchists who interrupt events, assassinate speakers (who quickly reboot from the dead) and vandalize buildings. There are strip malls everywhere, pushing a relentless consumerism. And there seems to be an inordinate number of vampires, generally not a sign of community health.
Libertarians hold to a theory of "spontaneous order" -- that society should be the product of uncoordinated human choices instead of human design. Well, Second Life has plenty of spontaneity, and not much genuine order. This experiment suggests that a world that is only a market is not a utopia. It more closely resembles a seedy, derelict carnival -- the triumph of amusement and distraction over meaning and purpose.
I've played a lot of MMORPGs (massively multi-player online role playing games). I started playing EverQuest in 1999 and was instantly addicted, playing more hours than I care to admit. I've also played Dark Age of Camelot, EverQuest II, World of Warcraft, and currently play Vanguard (albeit, much more casually than I ever played EQ). I also tried LOTRO in beta, but couldn't find anything in it compelling enough to continue it once the game came out.
What my experience has taught me is that there are two sorts of people in online games: those who play online the way they behave in real life and those who use their online avatars to behave the way they wish they could behave in real life. That's not necessarily a good thing; some of the ways people want to behave in real life are terribly anti-social, mean, and downright evil. Try playing on a PVP server for a while and you'll get my drift.
Having said that, I can also admit that some of the best friends I've had I met in games, and those friendships have lasted through the many games we've played over the course of the last eight years. The connection you can have with people quickly is a great thing and tempers the bad experiences with the meanies.
I've never been interested in Second Life for the same reason that the Sims loses its appeal for me: it's too much like real life. As busy as I am in the real world, why would I want to play a game doing pretty much the same things? I have to herd everybody in this world; why would I make characters that I had to watch like hawks on my computer, as well?
Gerson points out that his biggest concern with Second Life is the shallowness of its existence. Existence is, in fact, pointless outside of random pleasure and materiality. Yet for many people--particularly those who aren't spiritual (and I'm not talking merely Christian)--life is simply about random pleasure and materiality. If you don't believe there's anything more important than your personal happiness, it's hard to understand people who think there is intrinsic value to hard work and accomplishment.
To me, this is one of the basic divides between many on the left and those of us on the right. When discussions boil down to moral imperitives, many on the left are convinced that the most important goal of life is personal happiness. That can allow for nearly anything: high achievement, personal philanthropy, and discipline, but also abortion on demand, high divorce rates, and legalization of drugs.
This isn't to say I'm against personal happiness; I'm not. But when people do not accept the idea that there are ideals that are helpful for societal cohesiveness that are greater than individual happiness, it's easy to see life devolving into simply one more consumer choice to make.
|