|
Hollywood has released a couple of movies in the past months with a common theme. Both "Surrogates" and "Gamer" worked from a premise where people live vicariously through a computer interface, controlling the actions of a stand-in experiencing life.
In "Surrogates," humans remained safely in their homes, while android surrogates went to work, participated in sports, and otherwise engaged in the potentially risky activities of daily life. "Gamer," on the other hand, carried the concept of a "Sims" type game to the logical extreme. In "Gamer," the "Sims" are not animations on the computer screen, but actual people hired to be the in-game presence of the players. Through embedded nano-technology in the brain, the human "sims" are actually controlled by the players, and lose all consciousness of what they are doing while serving in the game.
While both movies present a sci-fi thriller, they also both present a challenging question to the audience. Is life better lived remotely, insulating ourselves from the associated risks?
Humanity has a long history of living vicariously through others, in many forms. I suspect much of the appeal of gladiator fights in the Roman Coliseum was rooted in imagining the self as the strong, bold warrior. Our modern spectator sports include an aspect of that - the game we are not that good at, we live out through those that are exceptional players. Books, movies, and television offer us another arena where we can take ourselves from our ordinary life, and live an adventure through other characters.
Video games extend the concept to another level, adding the element of control rather than just spectatorship. We aren't just watching the adventure - we're interacting with it. Through video games, we're able to experience situations and worlds that would otherwise be out of reach, and to do so safely. We can not only face mythical monsters, for example, but if the fight goes bad, it isn't like we suffer any real injury.
We're also able to delve into activities without training or preparation. We can be a rock musician, without ever taking a single music lesson. We can be the pro quarterback without buffing up, working out, or getting knocked around in training camp.
With all this, it's easy to imagine the scenarios of the movies "Surrogates" and "Gamers." Why not let an android take my place in real life, not only facing the potential dangers, but also having been constructed to my specifications? The android doesn't have to conform to my body. It can be young, fit, handsome, and ready for whatever activity interests me. If I'm going to live my life vicariously through another, why not through a flesh-and-blood sim that moves and acts at my whim?
Why not? That really is the vital question.
When a game is just a game that we play for entertainment, it's a healthy and fun means of relaxation. Sports, books, movies, etc. are all wonderful ways of escaping from the stresses of our day to day living.
The problem is when these things become our lives. When vicarious living replaces real living, we're not really living. It's all pretend. Having the top score in "Guitar Hero" doesn't make you a real guitarist. Defeating scores of enemies on a virtual battlefield doesn't make you a real warrior. Having lots of "friends" in a sim game doesn't make you a real popular person.
Real musicians study and practice for years to achieve the skill they possess. In a real audition, they cannot hit "restart" and try again. If they mess up before a real audience too many times, they won't have an audience at all. They can't save, quit, and come back when they feel more like playing. They must deliver the performance when the people who are paying them expect it.
Real warriors will find themselves on a battlefield where real weapons are being used. Wounds don't show up as a declining graph, but rather as real pain and real loss of capabilities. Real warriors must live with the understanding that death is permanent. There is no "out for this round, but back next time." If a real warrior makes the decision to leave the safety of cover and heroically charge the enemy, it is with the thought they just might be going home in a body bag. Captured warriors risk horrendous imprisonment, the possibility of torture, and death by either lack of care, or execution.
Real popular people have to learn how to get along with people, even when their friends prove they're not perfect. Real friends are going to be an inconvenience from time to time. Real friends take time, and if we don't invest in our friendships, our friends are going to drift away. We can't save them on a drive until we feel ready to deal with them. Having real friends requires that we know how to be a friend ourselves.
Both movies asked the audience to think about just how much of our lives we want to not really live. We can continue to allow technological advances to insulate us from the world around us, or we shut off the computer and the game console and the television, and get out to enjoy the world.
Me? I'd rather spend my time living in this wonderful world. For all its faults and dangers, there is so much life to experience.
|