This question has come to me a few times before; so I figured I'd post it and get everyones thoughts on it.

The year is 3030. Technology has gone so far as to do the impossible: Interactive Enviorments within a Small Amount of Space. (IESAS)
That is, we know have the ability to put on a helmet and enter a completely different world from our own via computer interface with our brain. Convincing to the smallest detail, the brain cannot tell the computer world from the real world.

(Example: Halodecks from Star Trek, the one episode of The Outer Limits, ect)

Benifets:
You're old and dying, unable to do alot of the things you love (running, talking, typing, drawing/painting, seeing things, feeling things, tasting, touching, ect) and can no longer do because of reason X. With IESAS you would be able to live the rest of your life as you wish, providing the ultimate comfort.
However there are other benifets. You could Run on a Treadmill and wear the Helmet for completly new scenery as you run. Or you could go on a fantastic date with your specail someone for $3.95 at your local IESAS station. You wouldn't have to go to Hawaii, you could go to your living room for a weekend.

Cons:
I don't think I need alot here; but I'll list a few. Keep in mind that there can be safe modes and ways to alert someone if they're not in a real world; I am assuming here that a hacker has hacked the program, getting rid of any and all indications of this not being a real world and disabled anything that would let the inhabitant leave from within the IESAS.
A sadistic rapist kidnaps his women by slipping the helmet on them when there back is turned. He takes them home to his basement where he rapes them daily. However they believe they are making love to the man they love in their IESAS.
The Government has lost control of it's people. Their answer is IESAS. They steal their own citizens and place them in a huge werehouse where they are living their lives in IESAS while slave workers keep making money for the Government; and no one has to know.
As a joke the oldest brother of two puts the IESAS onto his little brother where he lives for ten minutes as a chicken. However it malfunctions to an adult program where he is skinned alive over and over, and the Helmet fries his brain waves; unable for him to live without the device.

I am of course assuming that there are more evil people in the world then there are good. That the needs of the one out weigh the needs of the few.

So then, should this technology (should it ever be invented to it's perfect state) be banned? Is it worth it for one person to live in agony so ten can live in happiness?
For the sake of arguement; assume that all body functions are moving as if they were in the real world (so excersizing in the IESAS would have the effect of really excersizing).

No, because people can be bad with or without the technology. It should be the behaviour that is banned not the weapon or means.

Should we outlaw knives because they can cut people?

Besides, if there were a lot of money to be made in this new technology, then the government would probably be backing it, it which case they wouldn't cut themselves off.

Sounds an awful lot like the matrix to me. I say we ban the matrix. Bad matrix.

Even though apparent interest in this topic has died I'll give this a small bump incase the majority didn't see it.
True. Though then the question becomes: Should it be banned because it could possibly induce really, really bad behavior that violates people? Drugs can do that, and drugs are banned in most places. (I'm not picking a side with this response, I'm just giving options)

Nunchucks and other japanese weaponery are banned in some states in the US yet because they cause greater bodily harm then, say, a stick.

The Government isn't above illegal activity.
Although you have sound arguements/reasoning, it isn't really tackling the big question, just making smaller ones that aren't really needed (because different states have different laws).


Yes it does, though I'm not talking about something made up in a movie. (Although that's what this disscussion really is, the technology is more open to the public and they can actually unplug when they need to)

But can't this tool also be used for really great things?

I wish guns were banned - they only ever damage people. I wish land mines and cluster bombs were banned - they kill more innocent that those they are left intentionally for. IESAS i assume is built with good intentions in mind. It shouldn't be banned. Abuse of IESAS should be banned.

Maybe your could even market IESAS to the evil crowd. Go on virtual killing sprees without actually having to break a single law. Woops my bad. They already invented that. It's called video games.

The technologie itself is a great thing. I often thought about this, the advantages and disadvantages you noted are big.

The point about raping ppl and they cannot notice, seems a little strange for me. If this technologie would be that great (that we can not see where reality begins) there should be something like a volume control. The lower it is configured, the more active are your senses. E. g. like grades of sleeping -> on lv1 the sound of a falling needle onto the ground is able to "awake" you. And there should be some features, that you have to agree to about 5-10 security questions and just if you answered all, the simulation begins. ... but ok, I dont want to bore you with details and suggestions

@ Topic: Don't ban it!
Ppl who take WoW as a drug, can confirm you that virtual reality could be more interesting than the real reality. And ppl knew that there were risks on the nuklear-power-stations - but they created it. Everything has got a dissadvantage. If you want to be really, really carefull: don't move, don't let the air inside your lungs (the air could also kill u) - NO RISK, NO FUN XD

I love if ppl say "ban this" - no affront against you . If the whole NATO and the countries who not belong to the NATO would collectively ban guns, do you think any criminal cares about this?

The only possibility to ban something really, is to ban it before it is made. During construction, or better when it is not more than an idea.

The IESAS sounds really good. Don't ban it! But I think the day when it is fully developed, I'm not alife.

Could any of those drawbacks you listed ever, conceivably, with even the remotest possibility ever happen in the actual reality where there are laws of causality and physics and logic to worry about? And if so, would they be anywhere near as common as coconut-related fatalities?


In short, what the Hell are you talking about?

- How is the rapist scenario in any way worse than the real life scenario where the rapist knocks out his victim first instead? This is assuming that it's easy as pie to capture and kidnap someone without being caught, of course.

- Keep everyone in a warehouse and have slaveworkers make money? Why are the slaveworkers slaves? Do you have the slightest idea how economics work? How are they powering these machines and to what end? Why are these hypothetical monstrous and all-powerful government agents keeping the people alive to begin with? To what degree is this any more efficent than genocide?

- What if a Microwave causes a hole to be ripped in the fabric of time and our continued existence depends on the continued airing of the Rosie o'Donnel show?



Much wisdom can be found in silence. Silence, and just simply not talking if you actually have no knowledge of what the Hell you would be talking about.

Yes.
Rape is bad, it doesn't need to be worse to be worth our time to stop.

It seems to happen alot nowadays, why not the future?

I give examples. I do not speak of the future as fact, only what can be.
It doesn't matter how they power the machines. These are examples of what can be, not what is now.
That is not importent. This hypothetical is just that, hypothetical.

This leads me to believe you aren't taking this serious. But if you are, you'll have to elaborate on this.
If you don't understand, why did you comment further? Why not ask for clarification?

You're A in this scenario.

A: This technology would be bad because you could use x scenario to commit rape.
B: Wait, why is this any easier than how someone would commit rape now? It seems a lot more convoluted and difficult.
A: Are you saying rape is good?

No. No it doesn't.

It would help if your examples made the slightest fucking bit of sense.

They don't seem to be examples of either. You seem to be busily constructing a nightmare scenario to argue for the repression of progress, but you neglected to considers the laws of physics or causality.

You're trying to argue that technology Y could be bad because X could happen. The form of the argument is inherently asinine, but you could at least try to justify it by coming up with a hypothetical scenario that doesn't make you look ridiculous.

Your not caring enough about the subject you started to conceive of remotely relevant arguments leads me to believe that you aren't serious.

Because it's already abundantly clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

damn dark messiah, that was a shot in the nuhtz.

seriously, though, alpha, he has a point. just because something could be bad doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. if we lived like that, the caveman might have never made the wheel (is could run over something!), we wouldn't have electricity (it could fry somebody!) and we sure as hell wouldn't have airplanes, bombs, guns, knives, tanks, etc. we wouldn't have junk food or television either, or telephones. life is full of risks, that's what makes it worth living.

I'm sure that if a loved one of yours (Wife/Husband, Brother, sister, cousin, child, ect) died by frying (accidental) when electricity was first discovered, you'd have complained that it was bad and that something that causes harm can't be good, yet we've had good uses for it.
What about when Kain killed Able? Do you think the mother only blamed god? I'm sure she mocked the stones that did the bash, the ground for slipping his footing, and the blood required to live, because all of these things factor into his death.
The point I'm making is that everything has a good use.

Alot of US Goveners tend to think that allowing it's citizens to carry concealed weapons is a good thing/ok thing. Most crimes in the states that allow concealed weapons are lower then those that aren't. That's because criminals think twice:

1 Criminal: I have a gun, they don't. They could always reach under the counter to grab it, but they need a permit for a weapon, I don't. So I can rob them without worrying too much. Not only that, if I make sure their hands are in the air, I'l be able to see what they're doing!

2 Criminal that thinks twice: I have a gun, someone in the room will probably too. If I check everyone first I'll be able to get their guns. How do I do that?

I'm not elaborating on 1 or 2. You get the idea.

dark messiah, you haven't considered any of my points. You're just spouting the same stuff as last time. If you have something new to add, or believe your point hasn't been conveyed, elaborate more on your meaning/new meaning.

i don't agree with or really understand any of the points i think you're trying to make in your last post. care to elaborate?

I don't think he was making a point. I'm pretty sure he's just typing random things at this point.

The only thing i would worry about would be the AI 'becoming mean"....

To create any senario that is described, the computer would have to have AI..