Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Engaging in the art of life

By Sean Regan - posted Friday, 30 March 2007


What, in short, is the difference between being “transported” by a concert, painting or play, and being teleported to Shopping or Estate Agent Heaven? Solipsism, while taking many forms, has but one rationale.

It is, however, the third element of the defence which is decisive: that full-blown participation in the economy of a virtual society is a totally rational way in which to keep body and soul together in our current version of the real world.

One does not have to inhabit the wilder shores of postmodernism to appreciate that the distinction between appearance and reality is ever more negotiable. (Postmodernism, in any case, is a crude rehash of arguments that have been in circulation for centuries.) Futures and options traders, developers, consultants of every conceivable variety all deal basically in abstractions, to which there may or may not correspond some tangible entity, but which nonetheless have a substantial impact on the behaviour of those who take them seriously.

Advertisement

Or to use the terminology of John Maynard Keynes in his percipient essay from several decades ago, Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren: in developed countries the “economic problem” - of securing food, shelter and necessities - has been solved. Technological innovation and industrial management are so advanced that the amount of work necessary to provide most people with a reasonable standard of living is in continuous decline, such that only a small amount of full-time labour is required to maintain a relatively prosperous order. Keynes thought it was possible most people could engage in “the art of life itself”: art, literature, philosophy, that sort of thing. Possible, but highly unlikely.

For the upshot, Keynes thought “with dread”, would be that, deprived of their normal purpose, the majority would be wholly unfit to occupy the potential leisure-time that science and financial surplus have made available. The consequence would instead be technological unemployment: “unemployment due to our discovery of means of economising the use of labour outrunning the pace at which we can find new uses for labour”. Three-hour shifts or a 15-hour week, he suggested, might hold the problem off; but the “art of life itself” would be quite alien, if not positively threatening, to the self-image and values of most of the human race.

In practice, we have dealt with the problem by inventing a whole raft of utterly pointless jobs, producing and consuming superfluous goods and services, and “working” completely unnecessary hours: what amounts to a severe form of displacement behaviour.

Or, as John Kenneth Galbraith argued, we have turned pretty much the whole economy over to the entertainment industry. Wars aside - always a good way to keep people occupied - most of our economic progress consists in value-adding and devouring our way through a plethora of de facto amusements, of which gambling and pornography are the most lucrative sectors.

Given which, the case for virtual participation is highly persuasive. It certainly is possible to earn a living this way, even outdoing the Bulgarian GDP. Four Corners, for instance, highlighted the spectacular career of Anshe Chung, who has made the front cover of BusinessWeek as a millionaire property developer whose sales are of estates that exist only in the graphic images of Second Life. Her Linden to US Dollars may come in at 270 to 1; but that only requires inflating the fantasy price by the same ratio. Her millions in the bank are anything but virtual Greenbacks.

We may, of course, consider those who fork out (ultimately) good money to live in or copulate with electronic signals to be blithering idiots, but they are doing no harm and may in fact be displacing themselves from something far more pernicious.

Advertisement

As Keynes also wrote in the case of those who earn a living in the financial markets: many of the individuals attracted to the stock exchange and comparable money-making businesses are psychopaths. It is far better for society at large that they be thus occupied than perhaps exercising their talents in organised crime.

We should, in other words, be thankful that so many people prefer to go through their lives as avatars rather than impose on those who believe themselves to exist without delusions. After all, the critics’ injunction is to get a life. Does it really matter which one?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Sean Regan has worked as an academic, policy advisor and journalist. He is the principal of Editorial Eyes.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Sean Regan

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy