[martindbp]

Facebook aside, I understand the negativity towards "virtual" living, but I think it's the only way we can save the planet at this point. Sure, the real world is great if you work in tech and live in the richest country in the world, but we can't sustainably provide a life like that to everyone on Earth. If everyone wants a house with a garden, two cars and multiple overseas trips each year then our planet will turn into a shithole.

VR on the other hand has the possibility to provide experiences that rival the best the world has to offer, while consuming very little resources. You don't have to commute to work everyday, travel across the planet to experience other countries or buy huge houses to fit all your stuff. I think the rise of shut-ins and hikikomoris is already a sign that a low-resource (i.e. cheap) virtual life is more attractive to many people than the hyper-competitive modern life in gray dystopian metropolises.

This is all of course predicated on solving the health issues with being in VR for long periods of time, like having displays mimicking natural sunlight, unobtrusive headsets, preventing eye-strain and a means for getting exercise.

[dawg-]

This all depends on how far you are willing to stretch the definition of "experience", I think.