[DJHenk]

> And the disturbing part is that I am not even sure why - on its face value it seems great

And that is exactly the reason why it is not the right direction. Think about it. Why would one choose a virtual world over the new one? Because apparently the real world is not good enough. On the surface the virtual looks better, but if you engage in it, I think you will probably find out that it is as boring and hard as the real one.

People have lived for centuries without it. In those years there have both been plenty of fulfilled lives and unfulfilled lives. Clearly, the shiny happy virtual world is not a prerequisite for a fulfilled live. Now think about what made those lives fulfilling. Whatever the answer, it can be done in the real world. It probably is also not superficial and also not shiny. So trading the current world for the shiny virtual world is not the ultimate solution to whatever it is that you are looking for. It can be a tool, like the telephone is. But not more.

[biztos]

On the A16Z podcast, Marc Andreessen (IIRC) said something like "VR is not for Silicon Valley where you wake up every day thinking of all the awesome things you can do. VR is for all the people whose everyday life is terrible."

When you think about it in those terms it gets seriously dystopian. You put your AR goggles on for your 10-hour shift at the Nike factory, then you pop a protein pill and put your VR goggles on for the rest of the day, spending your meagre income on whoever bid most for your eyeballs on Google.

[tomp]

How is that different from any other form of entertainment (books, TV shows & movies, spectator sports)?

[jkestner]

It’s only a matter of degree—unless it’s completely controlled by Facebook, or any other company.

[hw]

I do think there are some merits to VR (a better gaming experience) but framing VR as a new worldly experience feels wrong to me. There are some arguments for Horizon being beneficial for people whose lives aren't great and they get to let off in a better, virtual environment. How is that different than opioids though - both are temporary escapes from real world problems, and that's just what it is which is an escape and not a solution.

[neilv]

> "VR is not for Silicon Valley where you wake up every day thinking of all the awesome things you can do. VR is for all the people whose everyday life is terrible."

An earlier Facebook VR demo infamously managed to twist up both, with the Puerto Rico tragedy demo. CNET report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8q2BQOGRGE

[throwaway1777]

Seems the factory workers are in a bad spot either way, at least the vr version is presumably more “enjoyable”.

[growlist]

> People have lived for centuries without it. In those years there have both been plenty of fulfilled lives and unfulfilled lives. Clearly, the shiny happy virtual world is not a prerequisite for a fulfilled live.

One could say the same about anaesthetic - but I'd still prefer to have the choice! But I won't be rushing to sign up for this. I don't use FB, and think they (& Google for that matter) are a malign force in the world.

[DJHenk]

Yes, I would prefer the anesthetic too. The difference between the two that it is very clear that the anesthetic is a tool. It makes it easier to accomplish something, but that something does not change whether you use the aid or not. Whereas the virtual world is often confused with being a new something that replaces the old one. That's why I said it could be useful as a tool, but not more.