« World of Love: indie games day at Channel 4 | Main | Trafalgar: Origins »

April 21, 2010

Comments

Kim

I attended Jesse's talk at DICE (the one that's been posted everywhere) where he made this same point.

Only in quoting it, I can't figure out if you are doing so because it's a good thing, or a bad thing.

Does improving your behavior under duress constitute betterment?

It made me think of A Clockwork Orange.

Alice

I think he makes a really interesting point about our potential futures! And it's also efffectively whuffie, right?

Previously people behaved according to social values, and in the future perhaps simply according to technological measures. And you're right, the difference, while quite subtle, is kinda terrifying. Very terrifying, actually.

Shards

Previously (and currently) people behaved due to fear of what would happen to them after death. Only difference to the above is that they feared god(s) whereas now we fear each other?

bob_d

@Shards:
Unlike the gods, people aren't so forgiving, nor so easy to please.

@Alice:
It's both social norms and technological measures that constrain people's actions in Schell's vision. People try to get their behavior to fit these (commercial) "game" systems, but their data is also public, so they're also socially constrained. (The worst of both worlds, you could say.)

The effectiveness of such data surveillance really depends on when that information becomes public. If it's when the person dies, then that hardly will change anyone's behavior - global warming clearly shows most people's distain for posterity. If the information is available in one's lifetime, however, it becomes extremely oppressive, as you have the whole world potentially judging (and therefore also potentially abusing) you for your choices, regardless of what they are.
I thought Schell's vision of the future as given in the DICE lecture was the most dystopian thing I'd ever heard.

Cunzy1 1

Good luck Jesse. Nobody is working to preserve games. 1,000 years?

Try playing 2003's Dino Crisis 3 pour exemple. Not that you would want to actually..

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent links