From an environmental perspective, this kind of minimalist lifestyle actually seems quite healthy. They don't drive, and I assume they don't fly or buy a lot of stuff, so their carbon and other resource footprint is small. They don't take up much extra space, so they reduce suburban sprawl and land required for housing. They probably won't have kids, which further reduces their environmental impact. Maybe we should encourage more people to live this way.
In the future, it may even be more efficient to hook them up to a large computer that is able to use them as a power source, too. We could offer them a virtual reality completely indistinguishable from reality.
The problem is it's hard to get right. I saw a documentary where people broke out of the dream and it caused all sorts of issues, they were able break out other people using pills and teach them to fly and other unrealistic things.
> Maybe we should encourage more people to live this way.
Sounds like an episode of Black Mirror. Life is meant to be lived; the purpose of life is at least eudaimonia, not slowly rotting away in front of a computer.
You can write books, compose music, build software, debate opinions all in front of a computer. It’s not the sitting in front of the computer that’s the problem.
That usage of "lived" is a romanticization. It's the grandparent telling the starry-eyed children about the good old times, glossing over the decades of toil and hardship.
Many video games similarly skip time to focus on heroic moments. You don't role-play the 10,000 hours studying tomes at Hogwarts to become a 1st level wizard; instead you start the adventure at graduation, or at most do a training montage.
> That usage of "lived" is a romanticization. It's the grandparent telling the starry-eyed children about the good old times, glossing over the decades of toil and hardship.
Nah, the grandparent knows exactly well the good old times were the decades of toil and hardship. The kids won't get it if the grandparent tells these core truths anyways, until they live it.
Not everything would agree. Most of the life on the planet's only hope is to be around long enough to reproduce and then be consumed in one way or the other. Humanity puts a lot of pressure on itself to flourish.
Well, perhaps they find the virtual life more compelling than the real one...
The problem is sustainability.
A virtual life cannot sustain itself indefinitely, and is not very robust. If money runs out or a tragedy occurs, it will be a scramble to get a job and interact in the real world. A virtual life does not contribute to society (if we mean a purely passive virtual life), and if people start adopting it en masse we'd be in trouble.
As far as I can see, we could simply try create a virtual life (or any kind of activity) that both is sustainable, and gives an interesting, engrossing life experience.
From an environmental perspective, this kind of minimalist lifestyle actually seems quite healthy. They don't drive, and I assume they don't fly or buy a lot of stuff, so their carbon and other resource footprint is small. They don't take up much extra space, so they reduce suburban sprawl and land required for housing. They probably won't have kids, which further reduces their environmental impact. Maybe we should encourage more people to live this way.