interactive Internet-based worlds. Whether purely imaginary or re-created from satellite imagery, they are becoming increasingly popular web destinations. Before discussing in detail what he feels are the merits of both types of environments, author Wade Roush opens with various speculations and propositions on how the 3D maps which define sites such as Google Earth can, or will, be integrated with virtual/fantasy/social networking scenarios such as Second Life. He illustrates several alternatives as possibilities; among them, bringing avatars into the Google Earth environment or, conversely, overlaying and expanding the Second Life landscape with aerial and satellite images to produce real-world views within a virtual setting. His explanation of a “metaverse,” however, is most convincing when he describes it as something more akin to the World Wide Web in nature – that is, an interlinking of hundreds or thousands of 3D interactive spaces, whether imaginary or actual representations of a world, available (mainly) through the monitor of a PC with the use of something like a web browser. The remainder of the article is spent extolling the virtues and opportunities which both types of environments offer to the user, and how and why connecting the real and the virtual can be made possible.After reading about the predicted future of 3D interactive “worlds” on the internet, I was left with one and only one nagging question in my mind: what’s the point? Although Roush does attempt to justify the vast amounts of time and energy which are being spent to enhance the user’s experience in these places, I was not wholly convinced that further development of these scenarios (whether based on reality or fantasy) is either desirable or beneficial to society. It is certainly not necessary. Yet, as the author implies, it does seem inevitable. The simple human trait of laziness and our need (and demand) for newer and better forms of entertainment make it so.
Maybe I say this because I am old-fashioned. I don’t believe that it is enlightening, or even very helpful, to fly an avatar through a simulated hurricane in order to learn about weather patterns. My gut feeling is that programs such as this will ultimately contribute to illiteracy and declining reading skills in well-developed nations. The same information and identical pictures can easily be found in underused and underfunded municipal libraries. Going for a virtual swim will certainly do nothing to build one’s muscle mass or cardiovascular strength, although the colorful fish may distract the mind from life’s more imperative demands, such as poor physical conditioning. And I fail to see what the advantage is to having a bunch of avatars socializing and walking around on a 3D map of the world. Users can see what they need to see without the avatars, and confine the imaginary identities to places such as Second Life, where at least some amount of intellectual effort goes into creating the visible landscape and objects. Even the data feeds that the author so enthusiastically describes as a “tactical advantage” (Roche 6) do not impress me as anything so different from what is already available. For example, merchandise tracking is instantaneous now via the use of barcodes and wireless scanners, as well as computer chips implanted in pallets of goods. Climate information is updated constantly on several websites. I don’t see where “augmented reality” gives much of an advantage over what already exists.
There were a few selling points, though. The description of an organization’s use of Google Earth to depict the effects of genocide in Darfur is compelling, and would be hard to duplicate without the integration of satellite imagery and the internet. Perhaps a chat room or forum added to their page would promote further action, if it hasn’t already. But how much further does it need to be taken? Will the presence of avatars in a virtual Darfur be even more effective? If that is what the people want …
Finally, there are several mentions of the possible military uses for 3D simulated worlds. I can’t argue that it won’t give armies a tactical advantage (if it doesn’t already). It may even help with training. But it seems to me that eventually other armies will find ways around this, just as they found ways to avoid radar and other technologies. They will find places to hide their fugitives and prisoners that are beyond the reach of any satellite images. They will always have the advantage on their home turf, with opportunities to ambush and surprise an invader. It just doesn’t add up.
In conclusion, I will say that I know my arguments are in vain. The overwhelming trend in the computer industry is toward the more fantastic, the more graphic, the more multi-dimensional experience. There is really no stopping it. Children and young adults are understandably unimpressed with television, movies, or even video games. The interactive virtual world is speaking t
o them. It is colorful, it is painless, it can be informative. It can even be profitable. But it doesn’t come cheap, and I hope Linden Labs and others keep this in mind as they expand their horizons, adding their 120 servers a week (Roush 9). There are better places to spend that money, and serious problems which could be alleviated with all the thought and time that goes into creating Second Life. A linking of virtual worlds (via a browser of some kind) into a “metaverse” is almost understandable. Anything more is not.Work Cited:
Roush, Wade. "Second Earth." Technology Review, July 2007(Print Edition). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Reprinted for New York City College of Technology.
Photos:
1) http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/technology/2008/01
2) http://www.ada.untergrund.net/
No comments:
Post a Comment