The Danger with Artificial Reality

Our culture is too comfortable with artificial realities at a time when it still greatly undervalues the living systems on which our lives depend. We are approaching a point in computing power and graphic display technology where we’ll soon be able to generate “life-like” visual simulations. These simulations, while compelling, are loaded with ethical hazards.?

This is another tricky milestone in the many thousand years march of human “progress”, one that has seen humanity, as a whole, distance ourselves from our origins: as part of, and a product of, the natural world. This separation is gaining speed and seems inexorably headed towards a cataclysmic resolution.??

I believe we will either find a way to change, en masse, our fundamental conception of who we are, and what we’re doing, in a way that brings us much more in line with the harmony of nature, or there will be significant suffering. This article is a reflection on the ethics of simulations of the natural world, and the potential they carry to make more likely a dystopic future. ??

Simulated Realities

In a New Yorker article published this past Spring - How Perfectly Can Reality Be Simulated? - Anna Wiener describes advances in computer graphic-based simulations of physical objects. “It’s probably going to be in our lifetime that computers are going to be able to make images in real time that are completely indistinguishable from reality,” she was told by Tim Sweeney, the founder and C.E.O. of Epic Games.

Wiener accompanied Steven Caron, a technical artist at the video-game company Quixel, to scan a redwood tree in the Oakland Hills. She wonders, “Was there something bleak about creating virtual facsimiles of the natural world while we as a species were in the process of destroying it?”

Scanning a redwood so it can be scenery for an adventure video game seems fairly innocuous. But the casual comfort of video games can yield to something insidious. As hyperbolic as it may sound, we must never confuse a digital tree with the real thing. I think about this a lot.

There is a very real ethical dilemma involved in simulating natural and living things. In a world awash in disinformation, and where the simulation hypothesis is gaining traction, the question of ontological status has become more important than any time in history.?

What is the Value of the Earth’s Biosphere?

Sequoia Sempervirens, the world’s tallest trees, take several hundred years to reach maturity and can live for more than 2000 years. The value of these magnificent trees to their ecosystem, and our planet, is incalculable. They have evolved over eons along with the plants and animals around them. Yet, only about 5% of the coastal redwood old growth forest that existed before 1850 remains.

Imagine being in California in the second-half of the 19th century, contemplating the vastness of the forest. How ridiculous it would have seemed that humans could, in a short period of time (geologically speaking), come close to decimating that same forest! Well, we did.

No doubt there was a lot of self interest at play, but like the larger environmental situation, there aren’t many villains in this story. Rather, the driver of this change was primarily one of values.

We don’t protect what we don’t value. We valued the lumber more than the ecosystem, as we currently seem to value hydrocarbon energy sources - and the convenience they enable - more than all of Life. Indiscriminate, industrialized logging devastated priceless ecosystems because lumber is valued in a way that the integrity, diversity, and complex value flows of living ecologies are not. We haven’t fixed this problem.

Consider the value difference between lumber and a live tree.

The logged tree has resource value and gets priced by the market. It can be conveniently sold and used to build shelter or create an array of tools and products.??

A living tree, on the other hand, is of incalculable value. But, it is a value mostly determined outside of, or adjacent to, the commercial marketplace. Its use value goes mostly unseen and unappreciated, aside from specific instances of trees that produce fruit, or shade, or are found to be aesthetically pleasing to humans. Under-appreciated is the way the living tree contributes to its ecosystem in a complex dynamic on which the lives of many other living beings depend.?

And, while any individual tree may not be necessary for sustaining human life, those plants commonly thought of as “trees”, on the whole, are critical to maintenance of the biosphere, playing a significant role in mediating a majority of the processes currently being tracked as “planetary boundaries”, beyond which the stability and resilience of the biosphere is threatened.

We currently seem to value hydrocarbon energy sources - and the convenience they enable - more than all of Life.

As Aldo Leopold suggested several years ago: We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to interact with love and respect.?

Due to the work of people like those at the Stockholm Resilience Center, more of us are starting to see how our planet is one vast community and value the myriad inputs into the complex processes responsible for our biosphere. We are also starting to get a sense of the impact our collective human activity is having on these processes.

The Value of a Simulated Thing

Now, let’s bring simulated trees back into consideration. Critically, a virtual tree has de minimus moral or ethical standing, primarily because it has no ecological standing.

Imagine a spectrum of value: A living tree is at one end, a dead tree (as lumber) is in the middle, at the far other of the spectrum is the simulated, which is almost without value. The value of a simulated tree is contingent on its use in a construction (e.g.: for education or entertainment) and, consequently, is extremely limited. Simulated trees can be reproduced almost indefinitely, at minimal cost. However, they are dependent on extraction from the ecosystem and do not contribute to it. Thus, their lack of moral standing.

A simulated tree may provide some benefit to humans. For example, it is conceivable to think that a virtual reality simulation of forest bathing induces a certain degree of calm in the viewing participant. A quiet, immersive, beautiful space with natural imagery and proper lighting is quite soothing.

Many dystopian books and movies present humans as existing on a barren planet, or inside a spaceship, with simulations of nature to ease them. On an overheating planet, in a culture that favors the ersatz “new” to the real, it’s not hard to imagine this as our future. But, of course, it’s not a future any of us should wish for. Increasingly dissociated from our bodies, we would become extensions of the machines feeding synthetic stimulus to our senses.

To a child who plays video games but has never spent time getting their feet dirty, smelling the humus, and observing the tiny creatures around a tree, the more “life-like” the simulation, the more danger there is that the simulation will be perceived as a satisfactory substitute for reality.

Simulations for Good

While I rarely play video games, I appreciate the intricate world-building and ever increasing realism. It’s really cool. And, of course, simulations can be immensely useful.

I’ve long been a believer in the promise of virtual reality (VR). Like most technologies, VR can be put to a variety of uses; and simulations have distinct advantages over the real world. There is tremendous potential in providing accessible experiences that are otherwise too dangerous, expensive, or impractical.?For example, VR can help responders prepare for emergency situations. Similarly, the reconstruction of intense situations can be useful in unwinding trauma.

Responsible use of VR is core to our work at aNUma , the company I run. Through it, we introduce participants to concepts and imagery otherwise only "seeable" in one's imagination.?

But, I fear aNUma is part of a thoughtful minority. Meso-scale virtual worlds like those developed by the gaming industry can and will be harmful to the degree they increase our sense of separation from the natural world.

The Slippery Slope

My unease is based in a belief that the more comfortable we become with the simulations, the more likely we are to further degrade the very thing that makes us possible: the biological, ecological processes make life possible.?

Where is the line between ethical emulations with practical value and digital facsimiles that hijack our nervous system to soothe innate longings but contribute nothing more than digital stimulus for human consumption while breaking the reciprocal loops of natural systems?

The answer, for me, is based on the response elicited and the further actions of the viewer/participant. Following engagement with the content, how is the individual inclined towards the living ecosystem? Do they turn towards life with renewed appreciation? Do they seek to engage the natural world with greater wonder? Or, did they imbibe their "nature fix" and go back to consuming without further thought of the precariousness of our environment?

The beautiful nature cinematography of Louie Schwartzberg serves as a model for me. His work generates respect and appreciation for the biosphere. Watching his work, one is filled with awe. Moreover, there is no mistaking the recordings of butterflies, as displayed on a screen, for the butterflies themselves. As a consequence, the viewer's appreciation for the natural environment grows. Personally, his movies prime me to go outside with more attentiveness, walk the forest with greater appreciation, and maintain a garden in support of pollinators.?

Hope

Despite dystopian dangers, I remain hopeful. Human ingenuity has the potential to protect life on Earth. It's not too late. But, it will require all of us to thoughtfully consider our place in the world, to see beyond the hyper-stimulation, and be grateful for those precious, not easily replaceable things (including ourselves), woven together in a natural tapestry of beautiful and unbelievable complexity.

The company I co-founded - aNUma - uses technology to provide humans a sense of connection to that which is greater than ourselves, in ways that orient us towards appreciation of the intrinsically valuable. aNUma is a virtual reality company, but we try to avoid showing representational visuals of objects that humans commonly see in the "real" world.