Ok, I know it is 2 and half hours from when this is due, but I am going to write any way. I agree with Castronova when he says that people do need to care about the large things, not the details. (so much) Online living is becoming a reality, although it may not be the world of SL. It is becoming apparent that getting by without the internet (in some form) is becoming increasingly difficult. People are working from their “home” office, having meetings via teleconference and working with other in real time on the same document from all over the world. This has fundamentally changed how we do things, and yes in some cases it has brought the world closer together. It really has not changed us as human beings. We still have a world full of people who are hungry; we still have war; and the numerous other issues that I actually believed that would be diminished considerably or gone from the society of now. That was over 40 years ago. Just as the “telephone” was going change humans, or mail or any other type of communication would bring us closer as peoples of a planet, it has’nt. You can try to legislate this away….been done before….did not work then….won’t work now. Actually now it is harder to push ideas onto people, because the truth shall be get to them. What happens in real life is going to get onto the virtual world. It is human nature.
I absolutely agree with how Interactive Media is a step towards harmonizing human imagination with scientific technology. Even though today’s media still seems to be boxed in, ‘Its like a Monologue’, the Nike campaign as discussed in the article ‘The three dimensions of Iculture’ seemed a very intelligent step towards mass interactivity and consumerism, allowing consumers to be also designers and ultimately participatants in the production of the equipment on how they want it to be.
Techonology today strives to further these capabilities, of being able to ignite a sense of aliveness when users are engaged with interactive media, with real time - SL is a great example for the lively interaction that occurs on web, it seems today’s interactivity in media has brought the web world back to life towards continous enhancement reducing the emptiness between the user and the medium and making a two way communication possible- effective, lively, informative and fun at the same time.(hopefully in coming years)
The freedom of expression the user cherishes with the Nike Id concept seems to also allow users to express themselves, for towards purposeful and real time happenings which I feel engages the user further towards being more open and as expressive as possible with their creations. This also relates to my discussion in the earlier article, Interactive media seems to not demarcate amidst the real and virtual but rather curves in - a pattern -balancing the real and virtual.
Importantly is also our role as users and consumers to also realize our ego centric character, such as in the case of the Nike ID controversy that it had with a consumer. The company had to deny printing the design the consumer asked for because it was some way of hindrance to the company as a whole, maybe towards their mission or image, the emphasis here is to have some form of a control strategy to let users also know that they own the shoe but not the company, and the privelege should rather be used in a proper form appreciating the ability to have something exactly the way we want it, worthwile the amount paid.
Besides, Interactive media can also be considered as a whole new realm in the world of Entertainment because it indulges equally if not less, contradictions and possibilities as much as the Web has provided since when it was launched. In other words, Interactive media also has numerous facets and that it requires for some kind of control (not to hamper individual rights but at the same time let also collective thinking prevail) in turn preventing from wildfires to occur in cyber space.
The concept Iphone is an example that has heightened features of high end Interactive media :
I don’t believe virtual worlds create a false environment that doesn’t equal, the “real world”. In Baym’s conclusion she mentions how quickly people have adapted to new technology such as the internet that weren’t meant to be used socially, but have turned into tool we use to interact with others. She also states “I am optimistic that we will navigate through innovation without losing hold of one another.” Meaning that no matter what new technologies comes out we will still have a sense of humanity. I agree with this because even language itself is an invention used to communicate with each other more effectively just like the internet. Benjamin Franklin had love affairs through writing letters to women far away even though they never engaged physically.
Castronova apparently has a different viewpoint he believes virtual worlds can stress a relationship, because one person may be in the virtual world more then the other. The same can be said in real world relationship if one person is always working and the couple isn’t spending time together. If couples aren’t spending time together it’s most likely because they don’t want to not because they are so far away. You can contact people instantly nowadays with technology so saying someone is far away isn’t a good reason.
I also disagree with Castronova when he says trades in virtual worlds are hard to track, when in reality they are much easier to track then real life cash trades. Virtual Currency can be easily logged and every transaction can be recorded digitally that is how gold sellers and buyers are caught when large amounts of gold are given to people for nothing at all. Virtual currency isn’t much different then using debit or credit cards we use virtual numbers nowadays there’s not nearly enough cash in the system to account for how much money there is out there.
“Synthetic worlds […] provide a forum of interaction that is potentially beyond the reach of any Earthbound power” (254). Well you got that right Castranova.
Although not even completed yet, our group project for Second Life has already proved this to me. Our group is setting up a charity event for the Project Jason foundation. We have been advertising for the past few days and the response has been incredible already.
Growing up and playing in bands, I’ve promoted many shows in my day. But, I’ve never gotten so many responses and gotten them so quickly than when promoting this show. I sent out a tweet about the event and within a few hours, I had about 6 retweets and one of which was from Second Life itself (which has over 27,000 followers woohoo!).
All of these people wanted to help support the cause. If I were advertising for a real life performance, it would take at least 4 or 5 posts before anyone even acknowledged me.
On top of this aspect, synthetic worlds like Second Life can really achieve some of the same things that we can achieve in real life in a much quicker time. Our group has set up a benefit event in less than a month. We found a charity, found a space to rent out for free, and found a performer within this time.
And the event has the potential to draw in as much money as a charity event in real life would. THAT IS AWESOME. It is virtually no cost to anyone, and enough people enjoy Second Life that it can draw the same sized crowd. Actually, it has to potential to draw an even bigger crowd because people don’t even have to leave their house to attend.
It’s a really interesting experience and I’m pretty shocked by what these synthetic worlds are capable of.
(Relay for Life event on Second Life)
After reading Castronova’s article about synthetic worlds, I really agreed with some of the points about immersing oneself in virtual worlds. It was a great way to start off the article to make the point about how we should not have to care about the ogres and elves in cyberspace rather we should care about their existence in these games and that we should consider virtual world on a “macro-level.” I read this article not to realize that there are these technological phenomena but to understand what all AI’s can do for us users beyond the basic built-in functions. I know that there are magical worlds and realistic cyberspaces that are mirrored reflections of reality but what I was most interested in was the cultural aspect of it all and how these innovations can go change our lifestyles.
Castronova mentioned some fairly new technologies and potential concepts that would affect us all in synthetic worlds. For example, even though we have online shopping in cyberspace, the article made me realize that it could go beyond this setting and allow our avatars which can be our replicated self to actually try on the clothes to see what it would look like. Not only would 3D shopping affect the economy both in virtual world and real world, it would also change consumers into prosumers, changing the way we function in Earthbound settings. Our cultural norm would consist of 3D shopping, we wouldn’t need to go out to ever try on any items allowing us to explore a new and convenient dimension.
The article also mentions another technology that can help incorporate our synthetic world into our real daily lives. I loved the example about “Meemaw” being able to see her family members through her lenses allowing her to interact with her grandchildren and kids who are 600 miles away. Synthetic worlds can help bring people closer together if they want, and this would change the way people interact in our futuristic society. If we are visually stimulated in our synthetic world we can feel like we are in our “earth bodies.”
There are some consequences to these developments however, Meemaw can lose her sense of reality. There is the potential for people to blur the line between synthetic and real life, which can harm not only other people around them but their earth bodies as well because we would neglect the basic art of living. While there’s a progressive development of digital convergence with out “bodies,” whether its 3D shopping or wearing a gadget to connect us into our synthetic spaces to potentially replace our real life lifestyles, some people may not be willing to adapt to these replacements or changes. It made me think of the Kindle, how while some who are into ebooks will love this new gadget, people like me, who prefer the texture of a traditional book would not be as appreciative about the Kindle product. Some users may not want to see their family via their glasses because it lacks the physicality of life.
Andrejevic’s article about 3D of iCulture was also an interesting read because I think it really relates to our society now, I really do believe we live in an iCulture. When I read the example about Nike id and one prosumer who wanted to get “sweatshop” customized on his shoe and Nike refusing to manufacture it, It reminded me of culture jamming. I believe that the more iCommerce we become with allowing us to be part of the production and as we give free market research for companies, there are more opportunities for culture jammers to challenge this system.
What I found most entertaining and shockingly creepy about iMonitoring was the example about the “Forget-me-Not” panties. I never heard of this prank before but it really made me think about the endless possibilities of surveillance. If we already have all these different ways to hack and track people online, and if we can create outrageous worlds and avatars online etc, I worry that silly concepts like Forget me Not panties could really be possible. We see that there are ways to monitor each other easily. Hanging up the phone and hoping he doesn’t call back is not even possible in our time. This made me think about how lucky we are, at least for now, that Facebook hasn’t officially created a “stalker” app because then we’d all be in trouble; we could no longer be that phone caller who hung up. I’m sure just as the the phone created a monitoring system, social media will soon develop this iMonitoring concept as well if it hasn’t already.
The Forget me Not panties also brings about the idea that people are developing technology to integrate it closer to our bodies. I wonder if were already making technology that can detect our body temperatures how soon will it be when we get chips injected in each of us and become walking avatars Earth bound?!
This weeks reading on Synthetic Worlds by Castranova was very eye-opening from the very beginning. He begins off saying his goal was to persuade an intelligent, skeptical reader that this vision of virtual worlds was worth thinking about. Throughout the course I have been probably one of the biggest skeptics you could find in terms of just about everything involving Second Life. What Castranova calls an “interactive epiphany” is something that I feel that has happened to me within the progression of the course. Being emerged within the online virtual world changed my perspective on how I think people can interact with others, the truthfulness behind those relationships and how people manage their livelihoods within them. He poses the questions of “why do we care?” or why SHOULD we care that these things are happening. I now think that we should care because it is all around us and slowly but surely will captivate everyone lives. Online and Virtual Worlds are becoming more prevalent as technology continues to develop, that it is something one should care about, seeing that it may be their future. Not only to look at it in that perspective but to see and understand the consequences that could happened if it happens to take that direction. Castranova talks about how one can become “vulnerable to the possibility of toxic immersion, of losing consciousness in that place”. I think that vulnerability is probably one of the biggest things that one can face while being part of a virtual world. Losing one’s grasp or sense of reality is also seen as a scary thing that can possibly happen. With all of the questions that we have explored and taken in to consideration in terms of virtual worlds and online play i’m still left with one and it’s will reality cease to be reality? Will online/ virtual world really become the way of life and how things are really done? Things are done so virtually and so synthetically nowadays that i wouldn’t write off this question just yet.
Within reading the first three pages of the Castronova article, I immediately come up with my discussion question: Will the existence of “normal” professions become minimal in comparison to the growing careers in professional gaming, development of games, and careers that solely involve playing these games? And does learning how to develop things in a synthetic world serve as a training tool for what someone can do in the real world?
Castronova talks about synthetic worlds and states that, “Anyone can try her hand at building a church, an empire, or a business. Anyone can learn how to run a city” (pg 252). I find this statement to be true, but only in the virtual world. Just because you can click a mouse and change the dimensions and levels of an object to eventually build a beautiful church doesn’t mean that you can necessarily to it in the real world.He then says “Synthetic worlds are also methodologically superior teaching and training tools”. This is another statement that I have to disagree with because even though virtual worlds can appear to be realistic and have multiple similarities, there are still an abundance of distinctions that still separate the two.
I think Castronova has a hard time distinguishing that the real world and the virtual world are just that, two different worlds. What happens in one does not happen in the other, unless someone programs it to do so after one has already happened.
One aspect of the article I do agree upon is the idea of vulnerability of time and and assets one possesses in a synthetic world. If a server crashes and everything a user had built up to that point disappears, there is no liability on the manufacturer of the game. The user of the game has to develop a trust in the game even though anything can happen. Hours of building objects and relationships can be quickly forgotten and there would be no blame to pass around. So that makes me think of another discussion question: Do you think there will ever be a time in which real world laws can be enforced online?
In Edward Castronova’s text Synthetic Worlds he discusses how “play only serves its purposes when it is play, and therefore not serious, we have an entirely natural predisposition not to care”. This immediately drew me into the article and forced me to be attentive. It reminded me of last week’s lesson on Gold Farmers. It’s supposed to just be a game, but that game becomes someone’s obsession and thus someone else’s career. The games then become a society based on our structure of social, economic, and political institutions. They meet our online needs and therefore create many opportunities for us such as training or teaching tactics. However, there are MANY risks to putting our faith in the hands of other people who control this technology. Castranova mentions the idea that if someone decided to pull the plug what would happen to the millions that were investing into the game? It’s like a stock crashing. Video games, Second Life, World of Warcraft; it’s all risky to become invested in.
When people devote so much of their real life to the synthetic world they allow themselves to be vulnerable.
I’ve learned throughout the semester that technology may open up many opportunities and has the ability to allow the world to communicate beyond what we ever have before. I haven’t agreed with much of what we’ve learned since I truly believe that the internet is unreliable and that technology is unpredictable. I prefer face-to-face and Castronova solidified my beliefs in this article.
The future of technology is exciting and lively BUT our whole lives appear to be absorbed in synthetic worlds in the near future. We’d be living in the matrix and I’m not okay with that. I want to walk around this real world as long as I possibly can. Our bodies were not created as cells. Avatars are the cells and should be treated as such. They live spontaneously for us and play games that we would not play in the real world. It’s a game. It should stay a game.
Castronova says that it depends who the providers of these synthetic world services are that predicts what could possibly come from this but I’m scared of who will get a hold of it.
This class has given me a crazy insight on who has the ability to influence the internet, the communities, the games, and the people who inhibit these synthetic worlds.
