NICCOLO SOLDO: Are we TOO connected these days? COVID has created more shut-ins than ever before, yet the ability to communicate with others has never been cheaper nor easier. For many, the ability to lose one's self has been completely lost as we are now all expected to be online and within immediate reach during all non-sleep hours. This places great expectations on people, and it is my opinion that this is a negative for our psychological well-being as we are not programmed for constant, instantaneous contact.


MARC ANDREESSEN: Your question is a great example of what I call Reality Privilege. This is a paraphrase of a concept articulated by Beau Cronin: "Consider the possibility that a visceral defense of the physical, and an accompanying dismissal of the virtual as inferior or escapist, is a result of superuser privileges." A small percent of people live in a real-world environment that is rich, even overflowing, with glorious substance, beautiful settings, plentiful stimulation, and many fascinating people to talk to, and to work with, and to date. These are also *all* of the people who get to ask probing questions like yours. Everyone else, the vast majority of humanity, lacks Reality Privilege -- their online world is, or will be, immeasurably richer and more fulfilling than most of the physical and social environment around them in the quote-unquote real world.

The Reality Privileged, of course, call this conclusion dystopian, and demand that we prioritize improvements in reality over improvements in virtuality. To which I say: reality has had 5,000 years to get good, and is clearly still woefully lacking for most people; I don't think we should wait another 5,000 years to see if it eventually closes the gap. We should build -- and we are building -- online worlds that make life and work and love wonderful for everyone, no matter what level of reality deprivation they find themselves in.

https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-dubrovnik-interviews-marc-andreessen?s=r

The cultural aspect is important. I think different cultures use their time and technology differently. Most of the stuff we purchase and use is related to a behavior we learned to socially keep up with others. It is artificial in a sense. It does not help that gadgets get more and more connected and always online. One deal breaker is that we believe we are brands building some kind of social sales network.

Yesterday this channel was recommended on my Youtube account. The people in the clips could care less about Playstation 5 and so on. Seen similar channels with similar content from the United States but this channel really took it a step further.

https://www.youtube.com/c/BIPhakathi

Is fitting new technology into your life really any different that what has always been since the beginning. The wheel for instance meant you could go see your family oftener. Of course it meant you would see your mother-in-law sooner than you would like as well.

Then the bicycle, then cars and radios and television. There is an ongoing trajectory and humankind adapts to each new advantage. Today's technology is the new advantage and it is working its way in very nicely as always.

I prefer to have each person customize their world to what they find most fulfilling rather than have some blanket self important statement by the likes of Andreessen. He's seems defensive after being accused of being addicted to his iPhoned playing Candy Crush and following Instagram.

"Moderation in all things" can still be a good way to go. I have no envy of the iPhone-Bots I see everywhere these days.

The wheel's history is different than usually thought. The log roller was first. What makes a wheel special and versatile is the axle. And it was used singly first, just one wheel on an axle as the potter's wheel.

"for our psychological well-being as we are not programmed for constant, instantaneous contact."

Why not? We came from social circles of people with brains wired for contact.

"The Reality Privileged, of course, call this conclusion dystopian, and demand that we prioritize improvements in reality over improvements in virtuality. To which I say: reality has had 5,000 years to get good, and is clearly still woefully lacking for most people; I don't think we should wait another 5,000 years to see if it eventually closes the gap. We should build -- and we are building -- online worlds that make life and work and love wonderful for everyone, no matter what level of reality deprivation they find themselves in."

COMMENT: Please tell me this is tongue-in-cheek. Yes. I am admittedly "Reality Privileged." And I more than willing to call your suggestion "dystopia on stilts." (A sort of idealized version of the Matrix!) I also get that by responding to this, I am simply just another person privileged to ask "probing questions." Notwithstanding, I can't resist.

So, we (and especially the Reality Underprivileged) shouldn't favor reality over virtual reality because reality has failed us; or perhaps better it is just too damn hard. Moreover, virtual reality satisfies the hedonistic-utilitarian principle of the greatest pleasure for the greatest number. Who can argue with that?

Since when is escapism to be preferred over the challenges of real time--whether painful or pleasurable, just or unjust, successful or unsuccessful. Indeed, most of us 'Reality Privileged' have found ourselves in one way or another 'reality-underprivileged, and have been tempted by such impulses. After all, 'Reality Privileged' is quite unstable, transitory and context dependent.

To my mind, the suggestion you propose undermines -- to annihilation -- all that it means to be human. Instead of denying free will outright--like our materialist friends--we are encouraged to use it as a vehicle for escape. (The new drug of choice!) Instead of striving for understanding within a humanistic faith that we can make things better, where continual effort can lead to a better real world--though perhaps not much better, let's instead give up and fall back on an artificial, idealistic, pseudo-world where peace of mind and psychological tranquility are guaranteed.

What worries me--as one who is admittedly Reality Privileged--is that the failure of humanity to get reality right (as you say) will drive more and more to the view that reality itself is illusory, or does not matter, or is inherently evil. Once the masses accept that premise, it eventually becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Sorry Henry, I made a mistake. I should have made it clearer that the next paragraph is also Andreessen’s. I left this sans comment of my own. Your comments fit my reaction. It’s pernicious.

And unfortunately he means every word of it. This is how the facebook’s metaverse will be marketed.

Further in the exchange:

NICCOLO SOLDO: By way of our interactions with the internet, we all have avatars that represent us online. Most are false, with a heavy stress on idealized (at least partially) versions of ourselves. Many now market their whole selves online, to the detriment of the Meatspace. Are we losing our humanity, or is this simply a shift into a new era? I may sound like a Luddite or the type of person to claim that one loses his or her soul through photography, as was common in the 19th century as the new technology was rolled out.


MARC ANDREESSEN: Back to Socrates! We've lived in a cultural and intellectual space just as much as we've lived in a physical space for thousands of years. Watching television is better than staring at a fencepost; reading a book is better than listening to a street corner preacher; worshipping a Big God is better than worshipping a local tree. Losing one's soul through photography is real, there's a you beyond you that is no longer entirely in your control, but it's still better than living in a mud hut and staring at the wall for your entire life.

I'll take the other side of the argument. Most people will be able to express far fuller versions of themselves and have richer and more fulfilling lives online than they would have in the old purely offline world. I think this is the story of much of the development of our civilization -- we participate in bigger and more complex cultural and intellectual spheres over time. Net positive, but not without its issues.

(Both paragraphs are Marc’s.)


For my part, I’m increasingly going analog, and feeling better for it.

Thanks for the clarification. Here is my response to your added quotes (understanding that these quotes do not necessarily represent your position.
_______________________________________________

"We've lived in a cultural and intellectual space just as much as we've lived in a physical space for thousands of years."

COMMENT: If you want to play this game, you can also reflect upon our (1) psychological space; (3) biological space, (3) environmental space; (4) ecological space; (5) ideological space; (6) cultural space; (7) intellectual space, and on and on. In other words, the thoughts and behavior of human beings are subject to a number of complex, overlapping variables. Notice the equivocation between "space" as physical, and "space" as metaphorical. In short, this "space" distinction gets one nowhere.
___________________________________________________

"Watching television is better than staring at a fencepost; reading a book is better than listening to a street corner preacher; worshipping a Big God is better than worshipping a local tree."

COMMENT: Doesn't "better" here depend upon a host of thoughts and motivations that are associated with these activities, and the content of the television program, book, "God, " etc. that might be involved; not to mention the values of the person participating in these activities?
_________________________________________

"Losing one's soul through photography is real, there's a you beyond you that is no longer entirely in your control, but it's still better than living in a mud hut and staring at the wall for your entire life."

COMMENT: Oh please. Stop with the "soul" talk and psychobabble couched in a meaningless value judgment.
__________________________________________

"I'll take the other side of the argument. Most people will be able to express far fuller versions of themselves and have richer and more fulfilling lives online than they would have in the old purely offline world."

COMMENT: Says who? Doesn't this depend upon what one is exposing themself to online, and for how long, and what real life prospects are being sacrificed as a result?
___________________________________________

"I think this is the story of much of the development of our civilization -- we participate in bigger and more complex cultural and intellectual spheres over time. Net positive, but not without its issues."

COMMENT: Is this supposed to be some deep revelation? Civilization offers advantages and disadvantages depending upon how people react to it and incorporate it into their personal and social lives, for better or worse.

It seems to me that this simple statement says it all, without a lot of pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo.

Can Mormons be called "Fantasy privileged"?