HCI
In the past, in the mid 90ies, I was working on Human-Technology Interaction. I was a research assistant at the University Ghent and I tried to build a research competence in this growing field. I did not pursue it. But that period has sharpened my sensitiveness to technology. And although I would describe myself as an early digital native, I am always aware of both the up-and the downsides of any technological step forward. In particular, I am always looking at the impact technology has on the behavior of people.
Since the World-wide-web started in the early 90ies, the internet has changed the way we do things. It has not changed human behavior though. The advent of Google, Facebook, and other platforms has given access to information, connections, … and has transformed many industries. It started with music, commerce, travel, and today there is hardly any industry that has not been touched by digitalization.
Digitalization is about Behavior
The mistake we make is to think that digitalization is about technology. But it is actually about behavior. Platforms like Uber, Airbnb match people who have something to offer to people who need it. Uber links people with a car and time to people who do not have a car and not much time. Airbnb links people who have a bed, a room, or a house to people who need it. And although incumbent players laughed those initiatives down, they had to see that these services did find customers and that their customers were also into it. That is the real disruption: the change of habits.
But even though there is a change in habits, there is no change in what drives behavior. Digitalization is only successful when it caters to a need that people have. Take the need for affiliation. Facebook and the like have managed to give the feeling that they can connect across boundaries of time and space. We have reconnected to people from the past and we get new connections. The platform provides us with ample opportunity to share our experiences. In that respect, it has also created mental misery because we tend to compare ourselves with people. And so, an overdose of happiness on Facebook has the potential to make us unhappy.
An Attack on Reality
Tech companies are announcing the digital attack on reality by developing parallel worlds that merge digital and real-life experiences so that they are no longer distinguishable. It is clear what the purpose is: these companies want to stay relevant by sucking people into their tech environment, creating addictive behaviors that are not sustainable.
Facebook talks about the Metaverse. The very sound of this word gives me the creeps. The fact that this company that is so much under scrutiny and criticism wants to drag hundreds of millions of users in something they basically don’t need, is
Let’s face it. What brought more joy when we went into lockdowns? Was it the walk through the woods, along the seashore, through undiscovered parts of ourr towns and neighborhoods? Or was it the hours that we had to spend behind a screen looking at the digital version of life?
We learn from our physical and social interactions with our environment. Children manipulate objects. They discover the world tactically. They learn to think and solve problems by finding their way in an exciting and sometimes risky environment.
Deskilling
Technological advance always leads to deskilling. And that should not always be a problem, but in the end, it makes us dependent on technology.
A long time ago one needed to be an engineer to drive (and repair) an automobile. Cars today are reliable. One needed to be able to study maps. Today the GPS has taken that over. And one needed manual force, to change a tire. But today, rapid interventions supported by clever technology have made having a spare tire in your car even unnecessary.
Architects needed to be able to draw and create their ideas on paper. Today, they can rely on their computer to make all the calculations needed to design and build the greatest constructions. And sometimes they make a mistake by creating structures that do not fit in the environment (example taken from Richard Sennett’s “the craftsman”).
Digital technology has made our lives easier. But to transfer to a metaverse is merely dystopian. It’s like installing Plato’s cave and renouncing our instincts. We must – at all cost – keep the distinction between the digital and the non-digital. We must keep in touch with the physical and social reality. Everything that comes in between us and reality, is derivative and not as good as the real thing.
It’s like installing Plato’s cave and renouncing our instincts
The idea for a virtual world is not new. Who remembers Second Life? It was an earlier attempt to create a virtual world. It flopped. The tech was not great. But the idea was the same.
I do not want to sound nostalgic or defensive. But there is no need to accept a technology push if there is no pull that finds its source in human behavior. And I do not dismiss virtual reality as a technology by itself as it has many beneficial applications, also in health care.
The Metaverse as Alternative
Virtual reality is used to promote well-being. People who cannot go outdoors are offered experiences of nature through VR. There are benefits, but they are reportedly not as strong as when people would go out (1).
So here might be the ultimate argument for the metaverse. Because people are increasingly living in cities, there is less and less direct access to nature. So people might go for a walk in a virtual forest and swim in a digital sea to avoid developing mental problems.
The fact that our environment provides less stimuli, the metaverse might fill the gap.
But we know that the digital solution is far from optimal. It will provide people with an easy experience that has nothing to do with touching the soil, the leaves, and branches, breathing the air and feeling the wind caressing one’s face. So this is a plea for designing greener cities, with ample possibilities to encounter people. Not only because this will fight pollution, city heat, and solitude, but also because cities would become habitats for humans that provide enough positive stimuli. This way cities become more liveable and people need not turn to a metawhatever.
By investing in positive environments, the relevance of technology as an alternative to reality decreases.
Radically Human
In 2014 I was asked what I thought the future would bring. I said that the future will be about rediscovering humanity. I still believe that and I have seen many good examples. We need to develop a radically human approach to the way we organize ourselves. This means that we need to build contexts that support our needs and leverage our skills. Technology plays a big part in improving those contexts. But:
Technology should never override or reduce humanity.
And let’s ask ourselves, who would be the main beneficiary of this metaverse?
Literature
- Matthew H. E. M. Browning, Katherine J. Mimnaugh, Carena J. van Riper, Heidemarie K. Laurent, & Steven M. LaValle (2020). Can Simulated Nature Support Mental Health? Comparing Short, Single-Doses of 360-Degree Nature Videos in Virtual Reality With the Outdoors. Front. Psychol., 15 January 2020 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02667
Published on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-metaverse-good-idea-david-ducheyne/
