Corporation-Based Virtual Realms: The Metaverse
Updated: Dec 18, 2024
The Subcategory Directory
Thoughts On Remote Work -- How Virtuality Leads to the Decline of the Physical Environment Recognition of "Force" -- The Philosophy of Razor Reapkvar
The Metaverse
2023 Note: Even though Mark Zuckerberg's metaverse is now probably irrelevant, the general concept hasn't "died" yet.
Lately, Facebook, one of the largest social media corporations in the world, changed its name to "Meta." This shift symbolized a broader ambition: to position itself as a key player in the so-called "Metaverse," a term for a future digital realm where virtual realities will supposedly blend seamlessly with our daily lives...
This rebranding was marketed as though it heralded a new era, positioning Meta as the architect of a virtual, immersive universe.
Now, what is Zuckerberg’s "metaverse," really, and how is it supposed to affect our lives?
In short, Meta’s “Metaverse” is envisioned as a VR-based system where people can perform daily activities within a virtual space rather than a physical one.
The concept may seem revolutionary on the surface... However, VR technology has been with us for years, accessible to people worldwide. It is told that the first virtual reality head-mounted display was created in 1968.
Ironically, Zuckerberg’s vision seeks to distinguish itself by proposing a seamless, "physical-feel" digital world where you can interact with avatars, objects, and environments in a manner that mimics physical reality itself. Yet, it is hard to see such a concept as innovative, given it lacks originality.
Understanding Meta’s Vision: The "Materialization" of the Digital
Meta’s proposed Metaverse would transform platforms from "social networks" into "social environments.":
Unlike a traditional social media app, where interactions are mostly limited to text, images, and videos, the Metaverse promises to create spaces you can walk through spaces, and interact with people and objects almost as if in physical space.
This takes the idea of virtuality far more seriously, as virtuality literally means "near reality".
This shift would reframe our relationship with the internet, turning it into something akin to an alternate, navigable world with a social, professional, and economic infrastructure.
Imagine Philosocom, for instance, evolving from a digital library of ideas to an interactive, VR-enabled "world" of philosophical exploration.
Rather than scrolling through articles, readers would "walk" through a virtual space filled with rooms, each representing different philosophical realms or thought experiments.
The idea may evoke curiosity, but it raises questions, too, about the potential costs—culturally, psychologically, and financially—of turning information-based environments into fully immersive experiences.
The Corporate Grip on Reality
A fundamental issue with this "meta-reality" is that it would not be public or open-source. Rather, it would belong to a privately-held corporation.
Corporations are basically non-state dictatorships that shape humanity. In same cases, a private corporation can be more powerful in resources than many nations in the world that remain ignored and obscured by the globe.
This means that the structure, rules, and access to this "reality" would be controlled by a handful of companies, ruled by executive officers you cannot even elect.
Corporations would dictate the limits, charge for entry, and perhaps even manipulate interactions within these environments to steer behaviors and, naturally, monetize every possible transaction.
This would create a pseudo-theistic dynamic where the corporation, as the creator and controller of this "universe," has power over every action that takes place within it.
Using the power of deductive reasoning, this means the VR universe will grow corrupt.
If reality can be governed by a "God" in metaphysical or religious terms, in the realm of VR, this “God” would be the corporations that own and operate these virtual worlds. Unlike the attempt to determine the existence of gods, one can surely understand that these virtual dictators, are real.
In Zuckerberg’s vision, Meta could place limitations on what avatars can do, where they can go, and which activities they can perform without incurring costs.
These restrictions would drive monetization by embedding economic limitations and incentives directly within the virtual realm. These digital landscapes could quickly become authoritarian "worlds", where users must conform to the policies and regulations of their digital overlords.
These policies, ultimately, are crafted not for the users’ benefit, but for the corporations' greedy profit.
The Real Intent Behind a Virtual World
Zuckerberg’s metaverse, along with any other corporate-driven VR world, is primarily profit-driven.
By creating a space where physical and virtual realities merge, corporations would encourage users to spend more time—and therefore more money—in these controlled environments.
Advertising potential alone is immense, with "billboards" in virtual streets and branded experiences within VR "real estate." The spaces within a VR world can be "owned," "rented," and "sold" just like physical properties, leading to a brand new economic dimension where every digital asset can be a revenue source.
This was already seen in the virtual simulation game, Second Life, which was, yet ironically again, released in 2003.
To this day there are literally virtual estate companies, based in "games" such as SL.
Either way, this "vision" has major downsides....
It caters to corporate interests, often at the expense of meaningful human connection. If one desires to speak to someone, they could easily do so through existing technology without needing a digital avatar or virtual city to host the interaction.
Meetings that could have taken place over a simple video call would now require VR headsets and subscriptions to enter a virtual boardroom.
One could argue that these additional layers, while seemingly innovative, only add unnecessary complexity.
The philosophy of Taoism showcases that there isn't not much need for great complications, and that these complications could go against our interest for better health.
Redundancy and the Irony of Immersion
The metaverse concept also reveals a redundancy—technology trying to recreate what we already have in the physical world.
Why recreate cities, boardrooms, and cafes in VR when we have them in real life?
The questions applies of course to people who like going outside, compared to people who, like me, are more a-social than social.
While VR offers the novelty of inhabiting impossible spaces, such as walking on Mars or exploring the depths of an ocean trench, these are peripheral applications.
The primary, everyday uses of the Metaverse—such as meeting colleagues or socializing—can already be achieved without the excessive application and funding of VR.
Moreover, it is worth considering the psychological effects of spending time in artificial environments...
Human beings evolved to navigate the real world, relying on physical senses and immediate interactions.
Immersion in virtual spaces may disrupt natural rhythms, with potential consequences for mental health.
Studies on VR use have revealed cases of disorientation, "cybersickness," and detachment from physical reality among long-term users.
This detachment raises philosophical questions about the nature of reality itself: If we spend increasingly more time in artificial environments, do we risk blurring the line between what is "real" and what is simulated?
The Ethical Quandary of a Meta-Reality
With our lives and data constantly monitored by corporate entities, is it ethical for a company to have control over an individual's digital identity, property, and even interactions?
The potential for abuse in such an environment is high.
Data mining, surveillance, and psychological manipulation could become even more invasive in a metaverse context, with companies not only tracking what users see and do but also shaping their virtual "lives."
In some ways, the Metaverse could mirror a dystopian universe where individual freedoms are curtailed under the guise of technological advancement.
Instead of empowering individuals, a corporate-driven VR realm could enslave them, transforming users into digital "tenants" whose access to essential services is governed by terms of service agreements and payment plans.
The “meta-reality” is thus not just a new layer of technology but a powerful, immersive extension of corporate influence into the most personal spaces of human experience.
Unlike the internet of today, which still offers decentralized pockets of freedom and creativity, the metaverse could be a step towards a more uniform, controlled, and monopolized digital landscape.
An Uncertain Future for Virtual Realities
Zuckerberg’s "utopian" vision is, at best, a double-edged sword:
It holds the potential for innovative collaboration, learning, and entertainment.
However, its execution and ownership raise important questions about autonomy, ethical boundaries, and the future of human interactions.
As we inch closer to this potential future, we must consider whether we want a world where digital identities are controlled and dictated by corporate monopolies. As much as we dream of exploring new realms, we must also ask ourselves what we are sacrificing in the process.
Conclusions
The metaverse might be a captivating concept, but it brings with it the potential for profound social, economic, and ethical implications.
For all its promises of "connectedness," we should be wary of a virtual world that may, in fact, isolate us further from the realities that matter most...
Genuine human connection,
Freedom from tyranny and oppression, and,
The irreplaceable experiences of the natural world, which humans are part of.
The journey into VR may open new doors, but as always, we must tread carefully, recognizing that every door can also close off another path.
%20(1).jpg)
תגובות