Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Michael Gerson Discovers Second Life (and Furries)
Channeling Michelle Malkin's groundbreaking discovery of emo, Michael Gerson discovers Second Life. And--surprise!--it turns out that this "Second Life" confirms Gersons moral and political philosophies:
But Second Life is more consequential than its moral failures. It is, in fact, a large-scale experiment in libertarianism. Its residents can do and be anything they wish. There are no binding forms of community, no responsibilities that aren't freely chosen and no lasting consequences of human actions. In Second Life, there is no human nature at all, just human choices.
And what do people choose? Well, there is some good live music, philanthropic fundraising, even a few virtual churches and synagogues. But the main result is the breakdown of inhibition. Second Life, as you'd expect, is highly sexualized in ways that have little to do with respect or romance. There are frequent outbreaks of terrorism, committed by online anarchists who interrupt events, assassinate speakers (who quickly reboot from the dead) and vandalize buildings. There are strip malls everywhere, pushing a relentless consumerism. And there seems to be an inordinate number of vampires, generally not a sign of community health.
Libertarians hold to a theory of "spontaneous order" -- that society should be the product of uncoordinated human choices instead of human design. Well, Second Life has plenty of spontaneity, and not much genuine order. This experiment suggests that a world that is only a market is not a utopia. It more closely resembles a seedy, derelict carnival -- the triumph of amusement and distraction over meaning and purpose.
So we're to see Second Life as a perfect proxy for behavior in the real word, absent government action and the particular brand of social sanction Gerson favors. Um, why? Obviously, the costs of playing some kind of sex crazy, drug addled furry in a virtual world are going to be significantly lower than actually being a promiscuous murderous heroin user, even in a world where government ignores vice and Michael Gerson is not around to tell you exactly how meaningless your life has become. The amount of harm you do to other people by, say, vandalizing their property or shooting them in cold blood, is inordinately less in a virtual world, which just might figure into players' moral calculus.
Does Gerson actually think that only social opprobrium and government coercion stand between us and the actualization of our escapist fantasies? Are kids playing cowboys and indians actually expressing a desire to kill one another? To paraphrase our fearless leader: In a world without housing inspectors, would houses have roofs?
Via Will Wilkinson.
Fluffy|7.6.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Gosh, this is stupid.
Any first-year philosophy student should be able to tell you that
in any natural-law based ethics, the ethics change if you
fundamentally alter the nature of Man.
In other words, "life, liberty, and property" and a rights-based
ethics is a function of the nature of Man as he exists in our real,
actual life. If you create an alternate reality where the rules of
existence are all different, of course you're going to get
different ethical outcomes.
|7.6.07 @ 4:03PM|#
Jennifer|7.6.07 @ 4:06PM|#
And there seems to be an inordinate number of vampires,
generally not a sign of community health.
This is true. And I've lost count of how many times I've said
"Libertarians will never get more than .000001 percent of the
popular vote until they pull the 'soft on vampires' plank out of
their platform." But y'all wouldn't listen.
I fucking well told you so.
Ventifact|7.6.07 @ 4:07PM|#
It more closely resembles a seedy, derelict carnival -- the
triumph of amusement and distraction over meaning and
purpose.
Yes, well, without someone telling you your meaning and purpose,
how would you have them anyway?
And the best line is the one in which Gerson (accidentally)
lampoons himself and the fundamental problem with his analysis
(viz. that this is NOT the real world and so not a real libertarian
world), as pointed out by Howley and Fluffy.
And there seems to be an inordinate number of vampires,
generally not a sign of community health.
Yes, well, I do worry that if we ever have a libertarian state,
people will start becoming undead and not reflecting in
mirrors.
thoreau|7.6.07 @ 4:11PM|#
And there seems to be an inordinate number of vampires,
generally not a sign of community health.
Yes, but they're all Sabat*. So you know they vote
Republican.
(*I LARPed "Vampire the Masquerade" for a brief spell in the
1990's. A very brief spell.)
thoreau|7.6.07 @ 4:19PM|#
I've moved past that phase of my life.
Anyway, I thought this thread was for the purpose of mocking
Michael Gerson.
|7.6.07 @ 4:21PM|#
I LARPed "Vampire the Masquerade" for a brief spell in the 1990's.
During a brief spell in the 1990's, I would go to gaming
conventions and ridicule the LARPers.
|7.6.07 @ 4:26PM|#
i know very little about second life, but what gerson describes sounds more to me like anarchy rather than libertarianism. i don't know how many times i have had to explain to co-workers, family members, friends, and so on the vast differences between the two. question to ponder: does the libertarian community fail in distinguishing exactly what they are for to the general public? does anybody else often get stuck having to frequently explain that libertarians are not anarchists?
|7.6.07 @ 4:30PM|#
LARPing stains the soul, thoreau.
Anyways, Michael Gerson must be one of the world's biggest
assholes. Unless he can't distinguish fantasy from reality, he
seems to believe that everyone is basically a sociopath who is only
constrained by punishment.
Like this sentence:
"Columnists, like frontier trackers, are expected to determine
cultural directions from faint scents in the wind."
No, mostly they are expected to entertain.
"So maybe there is a reason that The Lord of the Rings is
ultimately more interesting than Second Life. Only in a created
world, filled with moral rules, social obligations and heroic
quests, do our free choices seem to matter. And even fictional
honor fills a need deeper than consumption."
Thanks, Michael. I am so happy to know that I really am doing
something good when I help the Master Chief defend earth from the
Covenant. I thought it was just a game.
|7.6.07 @ 4:31PM|#
In related news, e-libertopia has been overpopulated for 30
years with dots. Fortunately, many of the community's roundest and
yellowest members have been eating them while dodging the ghost
monsters. Until they eat the larger, glowing disks, at which point
the shosts become edible as well.
Don't you see: Libertopia allows people an opportunity to overeat
and consume performance-enhancing substances! q.e.d. it is evil and
the end of society as we know it.
|7.6.07 @ 4:32PM|#
The one thing about livin' in 2nd L Santa Carla I never
could stomach...
All the damn vampires.
Someone had to say it.
would houses have roofs?
HA HA HA That was a great line. Thanks for the link. Great panel
discussion, great thread. Good times and noodle salad.
|7.6.07 @ 4:32PM|#
swede:
People conflate libertarians with anarchists for two primary
reasons: either they are too stupid/ignorant to know the difference
or they intentionally use anarchists as strawman to beat on.
Similar to libertarians accusing all statist-leaning politicians of
being socialists.
mantooth|7.6.07 @ 4:33PM|#
THE Michael Gerson? Of "Axis Of Evil" and "Smoking Gun/Mushroom Cloud" Fame? Well, I'll be sure to take this all very seriously.
|7.6.07 @ 4:37PM|#
Second life is a schematic representation/model of a real
society and therefore should not be expected to be completely
useful in predicting real world outcomes. The degree to which it
models the important aspects of any particular situation will
determine its relevance to discussion of similar situations in the
real world.
In that sense, it is much like libertarian political philosophy - a
schematic model of the way things might be under a certain set of
parameters. Second life, at least, provides a mechanism to test
assumptions.
|7.6.07 @ 4:44PM|#
Yet another example of how anybody who doesn't agree with us 100% is stupid. Man, there are a lot of stupid people in the world. However, if we just let all these stupid people do what they want without a bunch of rules and regulations, everything will turn out well. Why does it seem that only we understand this?
Fluffy|7.6.07 @ 4:47PM|#
Neu -
Actually, from the description Gerson provides it sounds like
Second Life is pretty much perfectly modelling what an ethical
system would look like if we were all immortal and there was no way
for any of us to feel physical pain.
Assassinating someone who instantly respawns isn't much of a moral
crime. Destroying property that instantly is repaired isn't much of
a moral crime. There's little call for "honor" when there is
nothing that needs defending because everything instantly comes
back the way you want it if some "evildoer" messes it up. I would
EXPECT such an environment to be full of people seeking amusement
by using their own creativity with no higher purpose. I'd also
expect to encouter large numbers of merry pranksters. Gerson seems
to want people to behave with Churchillian gravity when there's no
need to do so - which I guess isn't very surprising, given the
entire Straussian project of "let's pretend the old forms we loved
still have meaning, even though they don't" neocons usually get
caught up in.
|7.6.07 @ 4:47PM|#
barris, I didn't know libertarianism had suddenly become utilitarian. Also, it's a freaking video game.
|7.6.07 @ 4:50PM|#
...the triumph of amusement and distraction over meaning and
purpose.
Errr... Mr. Gearson, I know being a great Professor of Think-ology
you've got better things to do than answer a question from a
simpleton, non-academic, like me, but since when are "purpose and
meaning" absolutes to be dictated to the rest of us by snobs like
yourself?
Fluffy|7.6.07 @ 4:56PM|#
"However, if we just let all these stupid people do what they
want without a bunch of rules and regulations, everything will turn
out well."
Who ever said that?
Without a bunch of rules and regulations, stupid people will
blunder their way into misfortune all the time, I imagine. They
just won't be able to make it my moral responsibility to compensate
them for those misfortunes.
|7.6.07 @ 5:08PM|#
Libertarians concept -- the majority of people are trustworthy
because they will conform to social pressure -- the state is
required only to deal with the minority.
Populist concept -- the majority of people cannot be trusted to
exhibit the intelligence of a wooden post -- the state is required
to protect us all from us all.
|7.6.07 @ 5:12PM|#
Libertarianism is a socio-political philosophy
that seeks to define the rights of individuals in human societies
as well as the reponsibilities and constraints of government.
"Second Life" is an escapist fantasy video game in
which you can pee on someone's virtual feet while eating a
real-world sandwich.
That Gerson can't disstinguish between the two reveals his
fucktardery.
|7.6.07 @ 5:31PM|#
Swede,
The most hard-core principled libertarians are anarchists.
After all, a government is essentially an organization that claims
a monopoly on violent action over a territory and uses force to
subdue anyone who threatens that monopoly. If you are an extremist
like me who is 100% opposed to initiation of force, you cannot
countenance any monopoly backed by such violence.
There is a good collection of essays on the subject at praxeology.net
MattXIV|7.6.07 @ 5:51PM|#
Nobody has pointed out the obvious conflict of interest Gerson
has regarding encouraging people to take seriously things that are
clearly not worth taking seriously.
But they also represent a conservative longing for medieval ideals of chivalry -- for a recovery of honor and adventure in an age dominated by choice and consumption.
I'll remember that the next time somebody is camping my corpse in
WoW.
Harlevon Martinescu|7.6.07 @ 6:01PM|#
And there seems to be an inordinate number of vampires[sic],
generally not a sign of community health.
Excuse me! As a member of the Carpathian-American
community, I am deeply offended by this blatantly
racist statement. How dare you, sir!
Frankly, I am surprised that a magazine called "Reason" would even
provide a platform for the airing of such bigoted views.
Harry Martin
Carpathian-American Anti-Defamation League
(CAADL)
|7.6.07 @ 6:09PM|#
So, is this Gerson guy someone who's so smart he's twisted himself into saying something exceptionally stupid, or is he just a rather mundane pseudo-intellectual with delusions of mediocrity?
Brian Sorgatz|7.6.07 @ 6:33PM|#
But they also represent a conservative longing for medieval
ideals of chivalry -- for a recovery of honor and adventure in an
age dominated by choice and consumption.
Why does anti-consumerism have perennial romantic appeal for so
many people across the political spectrum? I ask in earnest,
because I really don't know and I think I need to know as a
militant anti-anti-consumerist.
It's certainly not a new philosophical idea that mere acquisition
of material goods isn't enough to make most people happy. But even
though we are many times wealthier-and therefore consume more-than
our ancestors, I don't see how our generation faces a
unique problem at all. How does commercial activity
per se stop anyone from putting value on more important
things?
I worry about the anti-consumerist movement.
Adbusters-type rhetoric may make it easy for someone to
sound intellectually sophisticated, but it's really a new
puritanism. Beware!
LarryA|7.6.07 @ 7:01PM|#
And there seems to be an inordinate number of vampires,
generally not a sign of community health.
And he knows this because none of the real life communities overrun
by vampires are healthy?
In this entirely new form of social interaction, people create
computer-generated bodies called avatars and mingle with other
players in 3-D fantasy worlds.
The only "new" elements are the computer and the elimination of
travel time. Otherwise it's the equivalent of a masked ball or
Halloween costume party.
Of course the new elements have resulted in one beneficial
development. People online are making more friendly contacts with
folks from other cultures and countries than the U.S. Department of
State.
The site has gotten some recent attention for its moral lapses.
A few of its residents have a disturbing preference for "age play"
-- fantasy sex with underage avatars -- which has attracted the
attention of prosecutors in several countries.
Because pretending to have kinky sex is so much worse than killing
orcs? Where's the "controlled release of aggression" argument when
you need it?
Libertarians hold to a theory of "spontaneous order" -- that
society should be the product of uncoordinated human choices
instead of human design.
Not quite. We hold that left alone people have the ability and
responsibility to coordinate their own choices instead of having an
"author" set rules.
To Gerson, of course, this is anathema. Named by Time as
the ninth most influential Evangelical in America, he would prefer
a world where the Author rules with an iron hand.
If you create an alternate reality where the rules of existence
are all different, of course you're going to get different ethical
outcomes.
Not if, like Gearson, you believe in the infallibility of the
literal Bible. Then there's only one correct moral standard.
Why does anti-consumerism have perennial romantic appeal for so
many people across the political spectrum?
They've never been really hungry. It's easy to say, "even fictional
honor fills a need deeper than consumption" if you've never felt
your bellybutton rubbing your backbone. Hierarchy of Needs, folks.
Until "consumerism" raises your standard of living to the point
where you nave the leisure to contemplate morality and honor life
is indeed "nasty, brutish, and short."
Brian Sorgatz|7.6.07 @ 7:35PM|#
They've never been really hungry. It's easy to say, "even
fictional honor fills a need deeper than consumption" if you've
never felt your bellybutton rubbing your backbone. Hierarchy of
Needs, folks. Until "consumerism" raises your standard of living to
the point where you nave the leisure to contemplate morality and
honor life is indeed "nasty, brutish, and short."
That is a thoughtful and thought-provoking answer to my question,
Larry. But it reminds me of a contrary answer from Virginia
Postrel's book The Substance of Style. She refutes
Maslow's hierarchy of needs:
"Human beings do not wait for aesthetics until they have full
stomachs and a roof that doesn't leak. They do not pursue aesthetic
needs 'only when basic needs have been satisfied.' Given a modicum
of stability and sustenance, people enrich the look and feel of
their lives through ritual, personal adornment, and decorated
objects. Poor people create the body decoration that illustrates
National Geographic. Poor people built the cathedrals of
Europe and developed the sand paintings of Tibet. Poor people
turned baskets and pottery into decorative art. Poor people
invented paints and dyes, jewelry and cosmetics. Five thousand
years ago, unimaginably poor Stone Age weavers living in Swiss
swamps worked intricate, multicolored patterns into their textiles,
using fruit pits as beads, work that archaeologists have found
preserved in the alkaline mud. These artifacts do not reflect
societies focused only on 'lower-order' needs. Aesthetics is not a
luxury, but a universal human desire. Those anticapitalists who
criticize markets for luring consumers into wanting more than their
basic needs, and those capitalists who scoff at aesthetics for
detracting from serious work, are missing a fundamental fact of
human nature." (2003 ed., p. 44-45)
Since that paragraph ends with the expression human
nature, I wonder already if some people here will deny the
existence or knowability of human nature. Chairman Mao would
certainly agree with those who consider human character infinitely
malleable (or at least trivial in political discourse). Think about
it.
|7.6.07 @ 7:40PM|#
Columnists, like frontier trackers, are expected to determine cultural directions from faint scents in the wind.
Readers, on the other hand, are expected to determine clueless
bullshit by the overpowering stench emanating from the
Post's op-ed pages.
|7.6.07 @ 7:47PM|#
You know, Mr. Gerson, I spent hours as a teenager playing Risk and yet, in real life, I've never once had the urge to conquer Kamchatka.
|7.6.07 @ 7:50PM|#
thoreau | July 6, 2007, 4:19pm | #
I thought this thread was for the purpose of mocking Michael Gerson.
Henceforth, all Hit and Run comment threads are for the
purpose of mocking Michael Gerson.
|7.6.07 @ 8:02PM|#
If you are an extremist like me who is 100% opposed to initiation of force, you cannot countenance any monopoly backed by such violence.
Two problems with this statement. First, the word "monopoly" is
strange. Are you claiming that the initiation of force is a market
good? Are criminals a free market alternative? If the monopoly is
successful, wouldn't that encourage others to enter that
market?
Second, if you are opposed to initiating force, then there isn't
anything you can do to prevent others from initiating force. All
you can do is react. This is why anarchy is inherently unstable.
The trick is to get a government so small that it feels like
anarchy, but one large enough to actually prevent it.
|7.6.07 @ 9:57PM|#
Well, Second Life has plenty of spontaneity, and not much
genuine order. This experiment suggests that a world that is only a
market is not a utopia.
It's important to call bullshit on this- One of the things that has
always attracted me to libertarianism is that *it makes no claim to
be utopian*. At least as far as I understand it.
thoreau|7.6.07 @ 11:17PM|#
Not if, like Gearson, you believe in the infallibility of
the literala literal interpretation of a translation of a translation of the Bible. Then there's only one correct moral standard.
Fixed that for you.
|7.7.07 @ 12:03AM|#
This makes sense; there have to be any furries in the Second
Life.
1. Hell is the Second Death.
2. The Second Life is the opposite of the Second Death.
3. Remember that saying, Hell hath no furry...
4. The Second Death, being Hell, hath no furry.
5. The Second Life must hath furry, since it's the opposite of the
Second Death.
|7.7.07 @ 12:17AM|#
Fluffy,
Actually, from the description Gerson provides it sounds like
Second Life...
I don't know if you realize this, but my comment wasn't about the
accuracy/completeness of the 2ndlife model.
Deus|7.7.07 @ 1:15AM|#
You know, Mr. Gerson, I spent hours as a teenager playing Risk and yet, in real life, I've never once had the urge to conquer Kamchatka.
Well of course. Everyone knows you never start with Asia, it's not
worth the effort. Now conquer Australia and you're on your way to
winning.
Wowhead|7.7.07 @ 11:20AM|#
I play World of Warcraft. Forget about morality, look at economics. WoW has stuff in limited supplies that real people want, and a universal means of exchange. In theory, it would behave somewhat like a real economy, but it doesn't. Except for the 2% of the market comprising the most desireable things, prices are all over the map, with no ryhme or reason. People work hard to acquire a saleable skill and then perform the service free for no discernable reason. People regularly attempt to sell stuff at outrageous prices that it is inconceivable that anyone would pay, despite there being a fee associated with even an attempted sale. I'll bore you with just one specific example of the lunacy of the WoW economy. There is a very rare "prestige" item called Assassin's Blade. It has been historically worth 100-200 gold. We have just had an expansion that raised the level cap and dramatically increased the incomes of level-capped players (the only ones who would want the Blade). Someone was trying to sell one for 350 gold, and was being flamed all to Hell and back for the outrageous price, even though it takes a lot less time to make 350 gold now than 200 gold then. So again, if a virtual economy is a worthless predictor of a real economy, I put little trust in the moral landscape of a virtual Libertarian society as a predictor of a real one.
Fluffy|7.7.07 @ 11:28AM|#
"I don't know if you realize this, but my comment wasn't about
the accuracy/completeness of the 2ndlife model."
I knew that very well, Neu. Your post says that Second Life is a
schematic of the way a society would work under certain conditions.
It further attempts to argue that libertarian philosophy is
essentially the same type of schematic. I was just pointing out
that the schematic used in Second Life contains some pretty
dramatic departures from our own reality - departures that are
dramatic enough that it makes it a truly poor tool for applying to
the real world [and you seem to agree with that]. I don't think
it's helpful to compare a schematic that actually attempts to model
the real world [libertarian philosophy] with a schematic that
deliberately does not do so, to make it for fun for the
participant.
|7.7.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Fluffy,
It is a fair comparison at certain levels of analysis. Both models
attempt to establish veridical approximations of reality and hold
those constant while allowing other variables to differ from the
current reality. Some of the variables that are allowed to differ
are shared by the two models. 2ndlife is not a perfect model of a
libertarian society because if also varies along other parameters.
However, the degree to which it models the important aspects of any
particular situation will determine its relevance to discussion of
similar situations in the libertarain model.
LarryA|7.7.07 @ 3:59PM|#
Those anticapitalists who criticize markets for luring
consumers into wanting more than their basic needs, and those
capitalists who scoff at aesthetics for detracting from serious
work, are missing a fundamental fact of human nature."
Brian, I sort of agree. I don't believe that the hierarchy of needs
is a step one complete, and only then step two thing. I also
believe that aesthetics are just as essential as markets.
(Otherwise I wouldn't be a writer and amateur musician.) My quarrel
is with those who say either markets or aesthetics is more
important. Those folks just don't understand the concept of
"essential."
Chairman Mao would certainly agree with those who consider
human character infinitely malleable (or at least trivial in
political discourse). Think about it.
Don't have to. Mao's answer came from the person standing in front
of the column of tanks in the square.
Not if, like Gearson, you believe in the infallibility of
the literala literal interpretation of a translation of a translation of the Bible. Then there's only one correct moral standard.
Fixed that for you.
Not quite, Thoreau. You fixed it to reflect how you and I see the
Bible. It no longer reflects Gearson's belief, which was my
aim.
People work hard to acquire a saleable skill and then perform
the service free for no discernable reason.
Actually, this example is not all that unrealistic. Lots of people
volunteer lots of skills. I myself have spent some time and effort
building skills as an actor and musician, yet I choose to remain
amateur because I gain more enjoyment volunteering than I would
earning money.
People regularly attempt to sell stuff at outrageous prices
that it is inconceivable that anyone would pay, despite there being
a fee associated with even an attempted sale.
Anecdotally I would say that WoW participants are on the young side
of the age bell curve. It could be that many of the players are
economically inexperienced. OTOH my rather mature former employer
is still, after three years on the market, trying to sell his store
for approximately double what realtors tell him it's
worth.
|7.7.07 @ 8:29PM|#
Brandybuck,
Of course there is a market for the initiation of force - in fact
there are many markets. In any large town or city, one can hire
thieves or hit-men. The government, of course, tends to be the best
provider of these services. Many people who wouldn't think of
hiring someone to hurt their neighbor if he won't mow his lawn will
quite happily demand a law that compels him to do so, and go to
sleep with a clear conscience.
Of course, these are not morally legitimate services, but a market
for them exists nonetheless.
To be protected from such violence, people naturally wish to
arrange for their own security. Most people think the state
provides this security. The state itself usually claims a monopoly
on security provision. Here in Massachusetts, if someone breaks
into my home and I whack him on the head, the State Police will
conduct an investigation to decide whether or not I should be
jailed for assault or not. Strip this down to its bare essentials,
if they decide that they don't like the way I acted, they will
happily kidnap me and keep me prisoner for a number of years. In
fact, they want me not to protect myself effectively without my
help, so they make fire-arm ownership difficult to the point of
near impossibility.
It is this monopoly I so strongly disagree with.
As to your second point, the only historical anarchy that collapsed
on its own, Iceland, lasted about 300 years. Most states have
violent upheavals every 100-200 years.
Anarchy may be unstable, but governments are even more unstable.
Governments, when you look at how they actually act, are protection
rackets like the Mafia. And you will find few people who think that
the Mafia serve a useful purpose to those whom they "protect".
|7.8.07 @ 3:07AM|#
Did Bill Safire die or something? These replacement writers in
the NYT are utterly terrible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/magazine/08wwln-guest-t.html
WoWhead|7.8.07 @ 9:54AM|#
Actually, this example is not all that unrealistic. Lots of
people volunteer lots of skills. I myself have spent some time and
effort building skills as an actor and musician, yet I choose to
remain amateur because I gain more enjoyment volunteering than I
would earning money.
But there's no fun (or anything substantive) in acquiring these
virtual skills. It's all deliberately drudgery- "grinding," we call
it. That's what makes the accomplishments noteworthy. There's also
nothing substantive in putting the skills to use. You just meet
someone's avatar and click a mouse twice- that's literally all.
Imagine there was a piece of virtual property you wanted, and you
qualified for your virtual job by playing tic-tac-toe for 20 hours.
Would you work for free? People do (shrug)...
Anecdotally I would say that WoW participants are on the young
side of the age bell curve. It could be that many of the players
are economically inexperienced. OTOH my rather mature former
employer is still, after three years on the market, trying to sell
his store for approximately double what realtors tell him it's
worth.
If it cost your former employer 2% of the fair market value of the
store every day, I predict he'd give it up. Anyway, when I say
"inconceivable," I mean it. All tin does is combine with copper to
make bronze and there are massive amounts bronze for sale at
between 1 and 2 gold, but nevertheless there's always an idiot
selling tin for 5 gold... or rather, not selling it but paying a
fee anyway.
There are 8 million WoW players worldwide, including many
professionals. Economics is fundamentally simpler than morality. I
just really mistrust virtual reality as a predictor of reality.
Doctor Gulag|7.9.07 @ 1:42AM|#
>>>And there seems to be an inordinate number
>>>of vampires, generally not a sign of community
health.
I have to admit I liked that line. :)
As for second life, I tried it out for a day when I had a cold. I
dunno... seemed boring. Downloaded ther scripting guide with
thoughts of constructing a virtial Imperial Battle cruiser or some
sort of gigantic weapon, but it seemed like too much work just to
manifest a cube or sphere. And even on my 15 Mbps fiber it was
laggy.
Don't get the virtual sex, either. I can just log into eros.com and
pay for the real thing.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245