Byte of Life: Meta: Digital paradise or virtual insanity?
On Oct. 28, the internet’s favorite humanoid-reptile proclaimed his vision for the future: “The metaverse will be the successor to the mobile internet.”
According to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s name-change to Meta more accurately captures the company’s trajectory as not only a social network for suburban moms but also a multimedia venture for cloud computing, personal entrepreneurship and virtual reality. Facebook’s rebranding is now in the spotlight of the tech community and emblemizes Silicon Valley’s shifting ethos.
In this announcement, Zuckerberg embeds his desire to change the public’s perception of both Facebook and his personal brand. By developing Horizon, Facebook’s virtual reality suite, Facebook could appeal toward the younger, technologically-savvy generation and override its reputation as a platform for older audiences.
However, the shift’s more meaningful impact concerns Zuckerberg himself. Scandals embroil Facebook’s history, from burying data and misleading the public to inciting violent political polarization. According to Kevin Roose from the New York Times, Meta gives Zuckerberg a new chance to “be remembered as a visionary technologist rather than a destroyer of democracy.”
Meta’s mission itself is polarizing. It suggests not only a virtual reality but also a mixed reality: a marriage between the physical and virtual worlds.
This concept is inherently dangerous, as Professor David Reid from Liverpool Hope University explains, “Whoever controls it, will basically have control over your entire reality.”
This degree of control over our personal lives is frightening. To those who doubt this mission’s impact, look no further than to our own lives for empirical proof: Our phones have undoubtedly become an extension of our own selves, which comes with all the good and bad attached — feelings of inadequacy and insecurity, unfair social comparison and mindless consumption.
Yes, I may sound like a boomer and not a college student writing this, but I want to convey the pervasiveness of Meta’s driving philosophy if Zuckerberg were to succeed in executing it.
On one hand, Meta establishes a universal interconnectivity that would essentially preserve our most important resource — time. Meta’s hypothetical normalization of a virtual workplace cannot be understated, as several coronavirus-era studies show that knowledge workers actually became more productive working from home. Who wouldn’t want to spend more time at home with their families?
Meta would also have powerful implications for digital healthcare. In an article for Forbes, Dr. Sai Balasubramanian claimed,“It may become a generation-defining revolution in medicine.”
For creatives, a virtual metaverse would be almost like a dream. Artists and designers could build their own world and personal avatar, which would open up new opportunities.
However, we cannot ignore Meta’s potential, existential danger. Aside from opening the gates to new forms of cyber criminality, data breaches and corporate abuses of power, Meta’s goal — if executed to completion — will fundamentally change the way we live and what we live for. By existential, I don’t mean “threatening our existence” but “internally changing it.” Meta’s philosophy literally creates an entirely virtual universe for us to live in.
This threat finally brings us to my main position — why? I believe it is crucial to ask ourselves: Why do we feel the need to digitize everything we can accomplish outside the virtual realm? We must challenge ourselves to look beyond the simple, rational pros and cons of digitization. Will a digital metaverse actually bring us joy as a society?
As a passionate student of science, I struggled with this question. While I admire technology’s use to augment our current functions, I cannot envision a new universe where it completely replaces these functions. As the pandemic demonstrated, interconnectivity cannot be replaced, and as a result of its deprivation, many felt lonely and lost.
For this reason, Meta’s vision frightens me: In this paradigm, we trade technological progress and efficiency for our humanity. As stated earlier, this pattern is not just exclusive to Meta, but it also represents a growing shift in Silicon Valley’s ethos. We tend to digitize life for the sake of science — and in many cases, money — without considering its ethics and our happiness.
Billionaires would like to be remembered as futurists. However, they fail to consider their version of futurism as something their grandchildren dread.
Miguel Mercado is a sophomore writing about the impacts of technology and economics on 21st century college students. His column, “Byte of Life,” runs every other Tuesday.