|
|
|
|
|
Whether
virtual reality will have positive or negative implications on the
social structure is debatable, but one thing is certain –
VR will play an increasingly important role in public and private
life as we move towards the future.
The
idea of virtual reality faces humankind with a completely new phenomenon,
what are the practical consequences of inhabiting a different reality?
(Sherman and Judkins
1992)
|
The
chart below briefly outlines some of the major arguments for and against
societies inevitable submission to a virtual reality culture.
Pros |
Cons |
•
VR is imaginably more personal than electronic mail or instant messaging,
or even a letter or a telephone call
•
VR is a great social leveler, it may find a common ground across
differences in age, culture, and linguistic orientation (Biocca
and Levy 1995)
•
people will be drawn together by similar interests instead of purely
by geographic location (Biocca
and Levy 1995)
•
communication will be both challenging and rewarding, more effective
and productive, and thus more enjoyable (Biocca
and Levy 1995)
•
a tremendous opportunity for every 'connected' person to find his
or her field and/or discipline(Biocca
and Levy 1995)
•
after using a medium that provides total freedom of expression face-to-face
communication may be found to be too confining (Cartwright
1994) |
•
an inescapable aspect of social life is the formation and maintenance
of interpersonal relationships (Biocca
and Levy 1995)
•
interaction ought not be substituted for community (Mayer
1999)
•
separates the 'haves' from the 'have-nots', a technology of Information
Age Industrialized nations
•
VR will provide a communication environment in which the dangers
of deception and the benefits of creativity are amplified beyond
the levels that humans currently experience in their interpersonal
interactions. (Biocca
and Levy 1995)
•
could lead to low self-esteem, feelings of worthlessness and insignificance,
even self-destructive acts (Cartwright
1994) |
Will
we be cut off from reality living in a computer-generated fantasy?
Or will we be more involved with others having adopted a new method of
social interaction?
Does
the future contain a VR world driven by commercialism and produces an
offspring of techno-addicts and sociopaths?
Or can
we imagine a future driven by researchers and educators, those who desire
the greatest common good over the almighty dollar?
Sherman
and Judkins have written an incredible book in regards to the projected
future ramifications of a VR society, and you can purchase it by
following this link: Glimpses
of Heaven, Visions of Hell: Virtual Reality and its Implications.
As
the debate over the effects on society of VR, perhaps it is important
to look back to VR visionary Ivan Sutherland and his statement from
1965. “Why not create computers that were designed to accommodate
themselves to the way humans worked?” |
|
There
seems to be little doubt among thinkers of the social impact of VR, as
much as television has, and the Internet is, regarding playing its own
part in the power games of our time. But like everything, humankind will
adapt by necessity. From health to education, torture to war, and art
to government; virtual reality will increasingly make its presence felt
and change the way we perceive things. ‘As time goes on, so the
technology will progress, and move further away from its original aims,
rather like gunpowder. virtual reality started in the abstract, and then
moved on to war; perhaps ultimately it will bring peace.’ (Sherman
and Judkins 1992)
In
the future we will only be limited by our imagination regarding
the uses of virtual reality. Thus it is neither good not bad, but
rather what we make of it.
“It
could be a lifesaving godsend, a groundbreaking educational tool,
a means of becoming out best selves. Or, it could be a mindless,
energy-sapping diversion, an off-ramp to electronic isolation, a
playground for immortality. Chances are, it will be all of these
things.” (Kershner
1995) |
|
This
site was published for Communication Studies 380 at the University of
Calgary, March 26, 2004 |
|