Jim Baen's Universe

Nonfiction articles

Earth's Next Schism

Written by Stephen Euin Cobb

A schism has formed inside the virtual world called Second Life.

This schism is between opposing viewpoints. It is between those who feel that a person's avatar should depict how that person looks in the physical world, verses those who seek freedom from their bodily appearance on the grounds that they did not chose to be born with it. Those who insist on accuracy say that to deviate is to present a false self to the world, and this fakery they see as a grand and elaborate lie.

Those who seek morphological freedom are called immersionists because they wish to immerse themselves in the virtual world; while those who remain similar to their original form are called augmentationists because they use the virtual world to augment their lives rather than change it.

The problem that has grown strong is centered on the distrust between the two viewpoints and the hurt feelings that have developed through repeated insults and social pressure. Even people who have the best of intentions at heart—good people; kind people; people who care deeply about others—have shown a remarkable intolerance toward those on the other side of this schism. This has led me to the conclusion that the divide between them is one of perception and confusion, not of substance.

In the past, our species has dealt with intolerance of many kinds and we have worked with varying levels of success to become tolerant of we call diversity. But morphological freedom takes this to an entirely new level. Traditional diversity is based on there being a few cultural or cosmetic or ethnic or linguistic differences between the several dozen groups of people on this planet. And that having been born into one of these groups, an individual will remain in that group forever, with no option to leave the group short of radical, dangerous and expensive surgery.

But this new diversity created by the morphological freedom inside virtual worlds throws the old diversity out the window. The old diversity—which we as a culture have just barely become accustomed to—is vastly insufficient. Within this new diversity anyone can be in any group at any time and can change from group to group to group at a moment's notice. A man can become a woman, or vise versa, instantly. There is no waiting, no cost, and the change is undetectable. Anyone can be Black or White or Asian, and can be one race for breakfast one for lunch and one for supper.

“So what?” you say. “It's just inside a virtual world.”

That this schism exists within an artificial world that is limited to a tiny portion of all humanity may make it seem unimportant. But this perception is wrong because this situation is temporary. In a few decades this same schism will launch itself into our physical world of six billion people. Technological advances are snowballing toward greater and greater individual control over our bodies functioning and appearance. Viagra and corneal implants are just the mildest hint of the sweeping changes that are to come.

Driven by the two most powerful forces ever devised by human civilization—the scientific method and the desire for profit—and strengthened still farther by the underlying human need for approval, nothing that stands in the way of this will prevent its ultimate success. Humans will achieve almost as much morphological freedom within the physical world of atoms and molecules as they now have within virtual worlds.

This is why it is urgent that we understand and overcome this schism today while it is still small and contained in an artificial world. This is our learning opportunity. Better we learn how to deal with it now than wait until it is too late.

**** 

To help you more fully understand the tensions that have developed between these two factions, here below are transcripts of portions taken from two episodes of my show. These contain opinion pieces from both sides of the schism, as well as my commentary about them.

Transcript Number One

(From the February 20, 2008 Episode of The Future And You)

In today’s interview, Giulio Prisco did not agree with my use of the word "schism."

I respect, very deeply, his opinion and do not fault him for it. But the more I think of it, the more firmly I stand by my use of that word.

Here's why:

There is a schism which has developed within the virtual world called Second Life.

I feel that our ability to identify and overcome this schism now in this artificial microcosm, is vital. Because within a few decades, our technological ability to alter ourselves, will launch this same schism fully into our physical world. Better we train ourselves in tolerance now, while the schism is small than later when it is everywhere.

The schism springs from the two different approaches people have to Second Life. I am an example of one approach. I entered wishing to meet the futurist and transhumanist communities that I'd learned were active within it. I also hoped to find brilliant people to interview for my show. So I entered, as much as possible, as myself. This has worked well for me.

But not everyone approaches Second Life as I do. And a tension has developed between these two populations that I can not describe from first-hand experience. But I know someone who can.

Argent Bury is a digital person I've met in second life and have come to admire. She expressed her approach to Second Life, and her feelings about the reaction that her approach has created in others, in her livejournal blog post entitled Taking a Stand.

She has given me permission to read her post into the show:

http://argent-bury.livejournal.com/10639.html

argent_bury (argent_bury) wrote,

@ 2007-08-23 09:21:00

Time to take a stand...

August 23, 2007

by Argent Bury

There has been a lot of back and forth on the internets lately about trust, voice, identity, morality, role-play, and scores of other SL issues that have no answers. Rather than gnaw on them every day and face continuous existential crisis, I'm taking a stand here. This is my last post on "what I am." From now on I'm posting about "what I am doing/thinking/feeling here." You can consider this post to be the contents of my "First Life" tab . . . I will post a link to this entry there. I encourage you, for better or worse, to base all your decisions regarding me on this post.

My name is Argent Bury, and I am a Digital Person. I exist only in Second Life. You can not and will not ever meet me in First Life . . . ever.

I choose to come here and live wholly in this world, not to use it as an extension of First Life. It is not the only way to live here, but it is my way.

You will never know the "real" me, except as part of what I present here. Some things can not be faked, after all. I type in Japanese quite well, I write bad sci-fi, stuff like that. And unless I'm the greatest actor in the world, I can't be "on" all the time, so you're going to get both good and bad parts of my personality.

I could be black or white, gay or straight, male or female, married or single, young or old. I could be a 300 pound guy living in his mom's basement, or I could be his mom. I could be a husband sneaking in when the wife's away, or a neglected housewife desperate for some companionship. You will never know.

I could be totally sincere about every word I say here and every feeling I feel. Or things could be kind of a hazy dream that passes away when I walk away from the keyboard. I could be a delusional solipsistic role-player, treating you all as NPCs. I could even be a sick and malicious griefer who laughs with glee with every word I type, playing you all for fools. I want to tell you I am sincere, although SL feelings are not as strong as RL feelings for me, but you don't even have to believe that . . . I could be lying through my teeth.

And guess what . . . you could be too. How can I be sure? Are you really a woman? I need to hear your voice. Do you really look like that? I need to see your photo. Are you really crying right now? I need to see you on cam. How do I know you're really like that in RL? I need to meet you in person. You could still be hiding things from me, playing me for a fool. I need to live with you for a few years to know for sure. Still, I'm not sure . . . what should I do?

The question here at the base of all this is: How do we trust people, how far do we trust them, and what do we base that trust on?

For me personally, I'm going to base my trust in you on the things you say and do in this world, and nothing else. And . . . selfish as it is, I hope you'll do the same for me. Second Life IS my real world, my only world. The only "you" I see is the you right in front of me, for better or for worse. Sometimes it will get me hurt, sometimes it will pay off, but it's the way I hope people will judge me, so it's the way I will judge them.

Not all of you have that luxury, and I fully understand that. You are here to find a companion to bring home to First Life and have to know personal details about the meat body on the other end, or your moral code requires that you know something about the real lives of the people you interact with, or you feel you have to know in some mystical way exactly what the person on the other end of the narrow connection here is feeling, or maybe it simply takes more to gain your trust. Given your circumstances, these are wise decisions, which I respect. You are free to distrust me. You are free to mute me. If you own land you are free to ban me. You need no permission to do these things to me, and if you do you can consider this post to be that permission.

But at the same time you can expect me to live by my code, and to judge you by my standards and not yours. There are others like me out there, "residents" of this world in the purest sense. You can expect me to seek them out, to try and build a community with them, and to fight for our rights when I feel they are impinged upon. And . . . because I am weary of war and strife . . . you can expect me to seek peace and understanding and reconciliation, even in the face of anger and ignorance.

This is my code, this is my creed, this is my life.

My name is Argent Bury, and I am a Digital Person.

**** 

Transcript Number Two

(From the February 27, 2008 Episode of The Future And You)

Next up is a listener comment from Randal L. Schwartz. I think it expresses very well the deep feelings of discomfort and confusion that some people, perhaps even most people, experience when trying to understand the concept of a digital or virtual person.

I don't experience this discomfort myself, but I feel as though I understand it. Although I may be fooling myself. My location in this world requires that I interact frequently with many people who adhere to belief systems which are mutually exclusive. That is to say, for one to be correct all others must be wrong.

Some of these people I like, some of them I love. They're relatives, friends, coworkers.

Consequently I have trained myself to like people without regard to their being or acting or thinking in any way that is similar to me.

Maybe I'm too tolerant. Maybe, But I don't care. I like myself this way.

By the way . . . For those of you who are very young or are unfamiliar with the history of American popular culture, the two people Randal mentions in this email will be unfamiliar. They are Edgar Bergen, possibility the greatest ventriloquist who ever lived; and Charlie McCarthy, possibly the greatest ventriloquist’s dummy who ever appeared to live.

Steve,

I haven't finished listening to the entire episode, but I want to comment on

the schism.

Would I interact with Charlie McCarthy the same way I interact with Edgar

Bergen? Perhaps, in a superficial way, I might, but some part of my head

always knows that I'm dealing with a "puppet," rather than the puppeteer, even

though some parts of Edgar are clearly visible.

In the same way, I would *want* to know in a virtual world that I was dealing

with a puppet, rather than someone being genuinely direct. That's not to say

that I wouldn't deal with puppets, but I'd want to know that a fellow human

being and I both agree that this "object" is a puppet, and may have human-like

characteristics, but may in fact, not necessarily react as any human would.

This is similar to going to a magic show, and being wonderfully entertained,

but knowing that ultimately, it was all smoke and mirrors (sometimes

literally). I enjoy those experiences, but if someone were to do magic with

me when I wasn't aware of having been in a show, I'd feel conned instead and

distrust them in the future, and even feel embarrassed at myself. This can't

be good in the long run.

So, I'm all for puppeteering, but let's please disclose it, for the greater

good of humanity.

I think anyone who wouldn't distinguish a puppet from a human must not have

had any genuine human interaction, and that also scares me a bit.

Randal L. Schwartz

I responded to this in my show with the following:

Thank you, Randal. I disagree with portions of your interpretation however.

My notion is that in a virtual world everyone is forced to be a puppet. We are given no choice in this. Therefore no one is, or can be, what we might think of as "real." And having been freed from the chance or choice of being what they really are, any person will just naturally wish to experiment with this new freedom. How much they experiment, and by this I mean how far they deviate from their original—that is to say physical—form will be a matter of personal taste and or curiosity.

There are people in this real world who do not like their appearance, or their age, or their gender, or their annoying lack of wings and the ability to fly.

And even those who like their appearance, and their age, and their gender, and have no particular fondness for wings, even these people might wonder what would it be like to change these things . . . just for a little while.

In a virtual world such a person can find out.

**** 

Randal L. Schwartz responded with:

I challenge your observation that "everyone is a puppet". I imagine two

modes of interaction . . . one in which *I* am speaking (via my puppet) with a

natural reaction to my (virtual) surroundings, and one in which I've created a

character, and before answering, ask myself, "what would *this character*

answer?". Those really are separate, and that's the distinction I want to

bring up between puppet and puppeteer.

**** 

In this, Randal may have hit upon the core of the schism. Empiricists, such as he and I—indeed all those who love science and the scientific method—are steeped in the tradition that “seeing is believing.” When this is focused upon a newly met human being, it requires us to believe that, “You are what I see you to be; nothing more, and nothing less.”

But we all know from experience that some people have been born into bodies that did not match what they believed themselves to be. Some of these people have endured the pain and expense of surgery, as well as the ridicule of those they thought loved them, to alter their bodies to match their innermost self. I’m thinking of course of the thousands who have endured sex change operations, but for each of these extreme cases of inside-outside mismatch there may be hundreds or even thousands of lesser mismatches. Perhaps most people feel some slight degree of mismatch. If not, why are the plastic surgeons and the gyms and the diet industry so busy and so profitable?

It is my suspicion that the dramatic outward changes which many, if not most, digital people make in their appearance are done so that they can present themselves as they truly believe themselves to be at their deepest level. And while some of these changes may fly in the face of conventionality, to the digital person they may be part of their struggle to be more honest in presenting themselves to others rather than less.

If this is true, then their need for anonymity, while annoyingly suspicious, can be seen as the one and only way to avoid the same ridicule heaped upon those who surgically changed the sex of their physical bodies.

**** 

My Closing Comments

There will come a day, decades from now, when the people you meet at work and school and the store will look the way they look because they chose to look that way. Not just their hair color and clothing style, or even height and weight, but their age, ethnicity and gender.

Each of their physical features will have been chosen without regard to their appearance at birth. Possibly even without regard to their appearance months ago, or weeks ago, or this morning.

Perhaps it will be a world populated by beautiful people all wearing designer bodies, but the point is that the tolerance we must all develop to function in that transformed world will be a tolerance that is itself transformed into one greater than any we possess today.

****

Learn More

You can learn more about Stephen Euin Cobb here or here.

Or learn more about his podcast The Future And You here, or here or even here.