> Then obviously this app didn't teach you anything about population
> distributions, natural resources, politics, Colonialism, warfare,
> industrial economies, multi-national corporations, etc! You learned a
> lot, to be sure, but you sure as hell didn't get the whole picture.
>
> You also realise that this isn't much data.
>
> Geographically, no, maybe not. But one must go beyond geography.
I was making one point from a very idealistic point of view (extreeeemly
idealistic. Neo hippy, even :) You know how a post-conference buzz goes). Of
cource this isn't the be-all and end-all. But .. have you done this ?? Or are
you talking from the perspective of your imagination ? Of cource overlayed
information would be nice, and more informative; I was just stuck by how
**much** (or little) information was conveyed using a particularly **simple**
simulation (though, of cource, dealing with multi-level polygonal data and the
frame rates terra achieves isn't simple, today). It was, for me, a pretty Zen
experience (or, what I imagine to be Zen, anyhow).
>It's bad. Disorientating. Very Nasty. Words don't
>even come close to describing the claustraphobia. You rip off the goggles and
>grab a breath of air. Not possible inside the simulation we enhabit daily.
>
> Doesn't this posit that "stability is good, change is bad?"
> An evolutionary view is that change is not merely inevitable, it is
> necessary.
I don't beleive it does. It is currently **possible** to exterminate all the
life in your garden (or the earth) using DDT (or whatever). But, better
judgement (usually; so far) prevents this. I guess I don't sit in the
Kellyesque school of "we're out of control and it's better that way". This just
plays into the destruction of natural diversity and its replacement with
constructed objects (and realities). I think we (as a species) have the
life-destruction angle wired, but are just **beginning** on the life-creation
(alife, virtual environments, generic engineering) angle. Nature (evolution;
god; etc) is vastly better at this than we are. A little note taking, and a
little less destruction, might be in order. In modifying complex, recursive,
object simulations (what I believe we have here), care should be exercized. My
sole point, really. Perhaps I got a little carried away.
> Also, the real world is much more fault-tolerant than VR systems are.
> They can take tremendous tweaking and life goes on just fine.
I agree with you in terms of the fact that there is a difference, but only one
in orders of magnitude. It depends on the degree of the tweaking. And on the
**kind** and **diversity** of life you want to go on. I do know that we are
doing **more** tweaking than ever, now.
I guess, however, that's a value judgement. No way to find out, without doing
it. Over tweak it; too late. Bye. Reboot. Let's start with pond slime again. Is
this a chance worth taking ?? I don't beleive so. Plenty of space for change and
experimentation **inside** cyberspace. We might want to ease up on the natural
world a bit ...
> Like ghettos? You can work on that now, other people do...
Exactly. Widespread access to educational technology for all. It will happen.
Does anything fundamental (apart from current distored costs) really makes
silicon more expensive than paper ? But, then, I guess we have a problem with
the paper, too. Good point.
Anyhow, I gotta run.
-- Mike
http://www.sdsc.edu/surfrider.html <--- environmental surfing site