High Fidelity v. Interstellar: Should Virtual Reality Exploration Replace Space Travel as Philip Rosedale Hopes?

MIT's Technology Review has an in-depth interview with Philip Rosedale and a look at the latest update of High Fidelity, his next gen, Oculus Rift-compatible virtual world, which is starting to come with realistic graphics, and more dynamic avatar interaction. Beyond that, this passage in particular struck me, because Philip and I were recently discussing this topic, and I'm planning to explore it more:

"Why go into outer space when it’s more likely that by amassing computing resources we will create all the mysteries and unknowns and new species inside them?” he says. Rosedale says the freedom to explore and experiment inside a virtual world generates a “social force,” creating positive interactions between people that are impossible in everyday life–much like the Burning Man festival he attends each year. It’s a vision that betrays a touching if naïve faith in humans and technology. But it’s set Rosedale on a shared course with some of the biggest names in technology.

There's an economic case to make for this, to be sure, but the idea of space exploration going away makes me sad. I mean, just watch this:

So I guess we could call this question, High Fidelity vs. Interstellar: Which version of the future should we prefer? Or perhaps more apropos, which world will our grandchildren be able to afford?

Update, 4:20pm: Bumped up for overnight discussion.

Please share this post:

Tweet

Comments

[Mark Y]

That's a fascinating hypothesis but it remains to be seen. Its also possible that virtual explorations turn out to be not much more than high tech navel gazing without the gravity, dynamics and constraints of the real world and real populations.

[Arcadia Codesmith]

Starships with holodecks.

Make it so.

[Deja Vu]

We heard it all before, 6 years ago the same Rosedale was claiming that in 4 years there would be more private islands in Second Life compared to websites on the internet.

[Pussycat Catnap]

I don't think pixel-sex is going to be a better future for humanity than spreading out across the solar system.

Its the fallacy of the 60s. That you could attain 'the age of Aquarius / enlightenment' through the shortcut of artificial chemicals... Only this time, the LSD is in binary.

Pixel-sex may have its place - but if its to be the destination for the species, we might as well launch the missiles and put ourselves out of our misery...

There's a reality out there to reach for. Rather than going deeper into Plato's cave - we should be trying to figure out how to get outside. Those flickerings on the back wall of the cave have their place as entertainment - not as a replacement.

[Iggy]

With all respect to Mr. Rosedale, if I *had* to choose, I'd much rather see us actually explore the Solar System. He may not like space travel because he just cannot monetize *that* experience.

Yet if--a big if--work in space starts to turn a profit beyond lofting a few rich people into suborbit or LEO, it's moot. Humanity will spread out, to use Gibson's metaphor, "like an oil slick" out of our gravity well.

In the final analysis, Rosedale's is a false dichotomy. We'll have earthbound viewers using the Rift to see the lunar surface in 3D from a rover's point of view, and if there is a ROI for a colony, we'll have colonists using 3D printing to make stuff they need for repairs. And playing games on Lunanet :)

[A.J.]

Maybe investors could just use High Fidelity and pretend like they're investing into his company.

Why bother with real money?

[Iggy]

I must add that John Glenn has more Billy Badass in one hair from his crewcut than any current HF Avatar.

No one ever called one them a "Steely-Eyed Missile Man." Astronauts exude a certain sort of 20th Century coolness. Folks with scuba masks on their heads? Not so much.

[Lindal Kidd]

See? Even those of us who USE virtual worlds understand the difference, and the logical fallacy in Phil's remark.

[Deja Vu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ktgAgp3jug
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmxBvNtiko4

There is nothing new or unique that is shown in that MIT video only implementation of existing ideas.

[Amanda Dallin]

It's not either/or. Some people will explore space but most will explore space vicariously through virtual reality. Kinda like most people explored the moon through television and radio.

[Inara Pey]

"A planet is the cradle of mind, but one cannot live in a cradle forever."

- Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky (oft misquoted as "Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in a cradle forever", but which still fits the bill).

I could quote Sagan, Haldane et al, as well. Instead, I'll simply quote two words in the MIT piece, which sum up Mr. Rosedale's viewpoint more than adequately:

"touching if naïve"

'Nuff said.

[Metacam Oh]

What Arcadia said. Going to need virtual worlds to live in when traveling the stars for thousands of years. I don't see why it has to be one or the other Phil. Space Exploration and Virtual World Exploration can coexist :)

[Arcadia Codesmith]

Another factor: life on Earth has an expiration date. Whether or not we destroy our own biosphere, this planet and solar system will eventually be unable to sustain life. If we haven't got our colonization efforts well under way by that time, that's it for humanity.

If we're lucky and wiser than we've ever been, the day might be millions of years away. But that's no excuse to delay. The sooner we start seriously moving out, the better.

But yeah, I still want my holodeck. Fortunately, seven billion of us means we multitask pretty well.

[Shockwave Yareach]

Then why bother having the news on tv? Why bother reporting what's happen ending when we can just make something up and use puppets instead? It's cheaper...

The entire point of exploration and research is to learn things we don't already know. Without going into the whole "we can't know everything" debate, if we even COULD know everything and model it perfectly to research it all in a computer, already knowing everything to create the model means there is nothing to research in the first place.

[Adeon Writer]

Space is faceniating, but inhospitable. I'll stay by the air.

[Arcadia Codesmith]

So, yes, plenty of solid answers to "why go into space?"

Apart from that odd little tangent, I'm 100% behind improving our virtual reality capabilities to construct endless universes of worlds to explore and inhabit. Every person who wants one should have their own virtual planet, system or galaxy to rule. It would be nice, however, if we first made sure they all had nutritious food, safe water, clean air, adequate shelter, good health care and an environment free of high-velocity lead projectiles and other lethal annoyances.

[Ananda]

Every virtual world resides in these little boxes, boxes on racks that are utterly dependent on an ongoing civilization, on energy resources that ultimately come from the actual universe around us. Or they reside in the minds of fragile creatures that are also utterly dependent on that ongoing civilization. So this is not an either/or. Either we learn the technologies that will allow us to explore the solar system and beyond, or there won't *be* a civilization that has virtual worlds, not for very long.