A Humanistic Metaverse
What the metaverse is, how not to get generation-gapped by it, why it is utopia conducive and not just for gamers, and why an open and humanistic inspired approach based on self-determination will likely be more fulfilling than its closed and extractive counterpart.
This is part 2 in a series of essays about the metaverse, please go back to the enjoyment guide or the overall index to explore further.
Index:
LEVEL 1: RECRUIT
Principled Distinctions: wtf has the Middle Ages → Renaissance got to do with the metaverse?
Practical Distinctions: what's the difference?
LEVEL 2: HARDENED
Meta[verse]utopia: is the metaverse utopia conducive?
The RealityVerse: how to avoid getting generation-gapped?
Ludic <> Non: isn’t the metaverse just for gamers?
Neo-Humanism and Autonomous Agents # 2: why does any of this even matter?
Wtf is the metaverse?
The metaverse is one of the last few decades' most loaded and polysemic words. To avoid confusing it, we will stick with simple definitions:
Homesteading the noosphere.
Adding causal effects to the cognisphere.
A "[...] a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace”.
Even more simply, it is the evolution of the internet into the more meaningful sum of various applications, experiences, activities (playful and non), mediums, and most importantly, inhabitants, into a globally interconnected network. It is the blanket term for nearly all narratives in digital evolution.
However, economically incentivised goal-post shifting when defining an infant network can often cause the metaverse to be either incorrect or underrated; as such, overly prescriptive definitions can be restrictive.
As with the beginnings of all partial migrations, various debates over the best route and the above discourses also come into play. However, some helpful distinctions, principled and practical, assist negotiations
Principled Distinctions:
“From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king.” - J.R.R. Tolkien
Wtf has the Middle Ages → Renaissance got to do with the metaverse?
Well, a repetition of the same opposing power dynamics appears in different evolutions of the metaverse: permissioned vs sovereign and centralised vs decentralised. These two polemic paths, open or closed in this dialectic, present stark differences for the people within them.
The closed instance presents a replication and potential intensification of previous dynamics, whereas the open presents an idealised view of a progressive way of organisation. Although maximalist extremes (cypherpunk to centralisation) can help highlight the consequences at stake, there are a few points to note.
Whilst based on principled motivations, they are often implemented through design choices.
Although often presented as diametrically opposed, these aren’t all-or-nothing packages and individual features can be integrated or cross-pollinated.
These contrasting conceptions are not mutually exclusive; they will co-evolve.
If a binary distinction is helpful, the open metaverse is as much of an ideological layer as it is a tech platform. The eventual seamless merge of most digital experiences into an integrated, decentralised (in parts), and permissionless (in parts) socioeconomic layer. In contrast, the closed alternative is more of an extension of the current status quo with some eventually better visuals. There's not much difference, but it's part of the equation nonetheless.
Practical Distinctions:
What's the difference?
Several components distinguish the metaverse from other instances of virtual worlds before them, some relatively necessary and others complementary. Most have been amalgamated from Narula, Ball, or Dionisio, with several additions and expansions on the implications for the inhabitants that will become relevant later on.
Loosley Necessary Characteristics (presented as idealised cases):
Immersive: increased scope for fulfilment and engagement.
Identity Implications: meaning.
Synchronous: worldwide, consistent social interactions between users, resulting in a shared living experience at scale. Uncapped global layer in various human and non-human clusters (DAOs and guilds). In certain instances, actions from one user can create ongoing effects for others.
Identity Implications: interconnectedness and reality.
Persistent: continuous regardless of individual presence; doesn't pause, reset or finish.
Identity Implications: reality and self-actualisation.
Interoperable: full connectivity and the ability to become portable; to take the full stack of who we are and what we own anywhere frictionlessly.
Identity Implications: flow, fragmentation, drift & development.
Fully Functioning Economies: individuals and entities can operate with the full suite of limitless commerce - rewarding and penalising contributions to digital society based on value.
Identity Implications: autonomy, competence and endowment.
Consistent Digital Identity: having the ability to create unique universal identity(ies) that allow for a cohesive self.
Identity Implications: persistence, continuity, fragmentation, and cohesion.
Merge physical and digital: experiences will span both mediums through various technologies, physical integrations, and interactions.
Identity Implications: duality, augmentation, and interconnectedness.
Complementary Characteristics (‘nice to haves’):
Immersive: in the mass-marketed sense, an enhanced 3-Desque sensory experience through technologies such as XR (VR/AR/MR) and other IOT devices.
Identity Implications: increased engagement, presence, blurred reality.
Enhanced visual experience: photo-realistic rendering of content and experiences.
Identity Implications: increased engagement, presence, blurred reality.
Several instances already exist that incorporate separate aspects of the above; conversely, the metaverse will culminate all of these (and many more) aspects. However, it is essential to separate the individual (a virtual world/space/environment) from the collective (the sum of all the experiences built on top).
RECRUIT → HARDENED
Meta[verse]utopia:
Is the metaverse utopia conducive?
Designing definite and juxtaposed utopian digital spaces often treads the fine line between idyllic and dystopian. Given the variety of needs and wants, a one-size-fits-all without tradeoffs is impossible. But how do we align on what it should be, and do we need to?
A short while back, Nozick proposed the meta-utopian framework, within which multiple communities can coexist, catering to various worldviews. But in a more static and finite physical world, criticisms such as conflict management, undermining of cohesion, and lack of common good provision made it relatively unfeasible, and some structures generally tended to become narrowed into systems that were best-fit-for-all on a national scale.
Regardless of views on Ol’ Rob, these criticisms are less problematic in the digital world.
With its unique ability to produce an unlimited abundance of unclaimed territory, ease of malleability, and limited requirement for as much public goods provision, the metaverse presents a suitable opportunity for experimentation. As such, a new metaverse native definition of meta-utopia may have the following characteristics that will be discussed throughout:
Voluntary participation and the right to exit: Individuals decide upon engagement and reserve the right to shape their experiences. Due to reduced barriers to exit, change and emigration will be more frequent, and stickiness will naturally decrease.
Competition: The existence of multiple experiments will enhance innovation and improvement, allowing the most balanced instances to attract citizens. These experiments will exist along spectrums of quality of experience, level of control, and reduced potential for coercive redistribution.
Minimal state intervention: Arguably the most contentious and resides on a global spectrum. A ‘night-watchman state’ may be required to maintain order and protect individual and collective rights in its convergences with systems; Lex Cryptographia will provide an alternative means in the remaining. In many cases, sovereignty is a burden, and an administrative state may prove necessary, but the hope is that meatspace politics will tread lightly on people’s lives.
What does this mean for the metaverse?
Simply, explorers will be offered many choices between different socioeconomic systems of organisation and law. For all the open vs closed, lex vs rule of law, and decentralised vs centralised trade-offs. Each can choose a balance that works for them.
The RealityVerse:
How to avoid getting generation-gapped?
Various thought experiments question the nature of the real (or authentic vs inauthentic experience). Similarly, an antiquated hurdle to overcome is the ‘value’ of the digital; some argue that digital is not real and, therefore, has no meaning.
A technophobic relegation of the digital experience as a second-order reality might sound like this, ‘Kids these days spend too much time on the internet; they should be playing outside.’
Different generations don't have the same view on many things, as their formative years were spent in entirely different contexts (see the comparative subjective value of gold post-2008 between boomers who lived through 80s inflation and millennials who didn't). Similarly, well-spent reality is also subjective, and digital aggravation may be a generational issue rooted in xenophobia.
We are at a tipping point where those same "kids" will grow up and almost definitely spend more time playing and working in digital environments than they do now, and the critics who utter such defences will eventually be dead.
“Don't let the little fuckers generation gap you.” - William Gibson
If you need it, structuralism provides a more formal proponent for digital reality. As partially touched on by Chalmers, digital worlds are real, non-illusory and valuable because they and subsequent objects are categorised by underlying causal structures (with humans at the bottom of the pyramid). However, much of the literature was written with a premature understanding of how real the metaverse will be and can thus be reinforced. As to what makes it so, there are conflicting opinions.
On the closed side, there is a common thread: to make the metaverse feel more real, there must be some plugging into photorealistic headsets that enhance or augment reality. Whilst cool, this is more a nice to have. The experiences will be siloed, internally monetised, and less akin to reality. Like their current counterparts, they were never organised to return value to meatspace but harvest time and attention, manipulate actualisation and reap taxes in their jurisdiction with limited rights.
It is likely that the constant relegation of the digital realm to a second-order reality has certainly assisted the current consolidation of power.
One of the key differences between the open metaverse and environments before them is that the chain of causation for one's actions will be broader and more comprehensive with real money, objects and mostly real users. Using crypto to document events in the metaverse affects the real world (transfer of value, identity, entitlements and interactions). Some of these impacts will be more significant (at the broader metaverse level) than in more segregated virtual worlds (limited interworld). Still, they will mark the partial transition from passive consumer culture (voyeurs) to active participation (agents of change). The open metaverse is Thomas' theorem on crack, combining belief and causal effect, where imagined communities with consensual currencies and contracts establish common economies, shared futures, and a sense of political and legal obligations.
As the results of actions become more real, so do the consequences. Perhaps those monks shouldn't have been beaten for having erotic dreams, but the metaverse is inherently social. So, the repercussions from interactions will be equally impactful, including tax implications and various social infringements.
Although a partial evasion, this all may be a case of overly conceptual armchair posturing and or reality bias rather than a consideration that these digital worlds may provide a superior alternative to those with less-than-fulfilling realities.
Previously, the fulfilment of needs was correlated with physiological circumstances and national human development indicators.
Conversely, the metaverse discriminates solely based on minimal hardware (mobile upwards) and internet connection. Offering those from disparate or less developed nations access to an integrated and globally permissionless socio-economy (that can feedback into the physical), or at the very least, more access to realise basic psychological needs through interactions (social and business) and education that previously had significantly higher barriers to entry (how much dictated by needs density).
Ludic <> Non:
Isn’t the metaverse just for gamers?
Similar to how the enhanced visual experiences of the metaverse are often distorted as necessary conditions, so too is the oversimplification as a leisure hub.
As a blurred and interconnected network of species, experiences and activities, the applications for the metaverse are limitless. Of course, these may traverse the fantastical (larping) and ludic (gaming) as well as the traditional (culture and finance) and non-ludic (healthcare, education, science, digital twins) and anything in between.
That is not to say leisure is not important. Play is not just a necessary component of biological culture. It often precedes elements of language, logic, and law, a culmination of myth, ritual, and contest and an intrinsically fulfilling vocation, bound by its own rules and permeating all aspects of life. But where is the line?
Huizinga suggests a ‘magic circle’, a space ‘dedicated to a performance of an act apart’, separated from real life by boundaries of time, space and special rules.
It is difficult to pinpoint when a game breaks the fourth wall, and the ludic becomes the non.
Castronova suggests a fusion of markets (currency and trade), politics (debates on governance) and law (intersection with property rights). Given the aforementioned intersection of all three and many more, the merge of ludic and non-ludic in the metaverse will break down (or encompass) many such walls. Coupled with the decreasing cost of hardware, crypto rails lowering entry barriers for underserved markets, AI reducing barriers to creation, and (potentially) increasing leisure time.
The Ludic > Non is a trend that will likely continue.
Neo-Humanism and Autonomous Agents # 2:
Why does any of this even matter?
To achieve a better metaverse, it should likely be filled with individuals with a full suite of expressive capacities, a way to fuse digitalisation<>organic life that is consistently fulfilling for its inhabitants.
What are we trying to protect and enhance in the metaverse?
“The right of each person to express his individuality is perhaps the most jealously guarded prerogative in modern Western society. We exercise this right in various ways: in the vote, in freedom of expression and movement, and in more personal forms such as our career, home and appearance. In each of these manifestations we express our difference one from the other, our uniqueness. Concern for privacy, and the need to ensure protection for what information may exist at large about us, is a major determinant in the way we live. We maintain the correct personal distance from each other, we regard physical assault as a major crime. We allow the state to have many rights over us, but never to invade or detract from our own rights as individuals.” - Burke, 1985.
Well… many aspects of liberal Western democracies that we have come to enjoy since the first Renaissance, in a relative balance between idealism and pragmatism. A commitment to continued shades of humanism has arguably reduced the scale of atrocities or, at the very least, allowed accountability to specific groups (bureaucratic nation-states and their berated servants or informal groups) rather than excused by religious figureheads (greybeards in the sky). As such, in many places, there has been a transition from prescriptive adherence to lengthy morals and violent wars (where malecide was legit) with the incessance of one static truth to the radically pragmatic acceptance that, as much as possible, letting everyone choose for themselves is optimal.
Similarly, adherence to various forms of individualism can create handy frameworks for a fulfilling inhabitant-first metaverse, much like it did with the Renaissance agents of change. But it isn't a comprehensive catch-all, and its fragmented evolution from pre-Socratic to present has made it even less cohesive. In short, we replaced prescriptive authority from above with subjective authority from within, and this myth has been the modern lifeblood.
But these did not go from 0 → 1 in a day or across all spectrums.
Economically, it has been shades of - markets, like nature, should be survival of the fittest: protocapitalism → laissez-faire → industrialisation → neoliberalism → gig economy.
Philosophically, it has been more varied: humanism (autonomy and reason) → romantic individualism (sublime hermits) → transcendentalism (emotion and spirituality) → "God is dead" - existentialism (choice and responsibility) → "Man is God" - expressive individualism (you do you) → could do with some God rn.
More specific transitions from the top-down to the bottom-up have also been made in modern art (classicism → beauty is in the eye of the beholder), education (prescribed → ability to think for yourself), ethics (God → how do you feel), markets (feudalism → consumer knows best) and politics (Kings → voter knows best).
Again, it is not a universal maxim, nor one without counters.
But what may ye individualism doubters say?
Free markets tend to widen inequalities (bad for winners and losers), and freedom is only fun if you can afford it.
Those who live as isolated individuals get depressed, and solitude and narcissism are better descriptions than enlightened self-reflection.
Whilst we have some innate sense of morality, others are still more influential in identity formation.
We should have stuck with Aristotle, as too much individualism = sub-par morality.
Collective > individual in terms of scope for achievement with sufficient cooperation.
Pretty decent, but these don’t apply to all types. As an example, there are many different global shades of capitalism: regulated and polarised in the US, Nordic social welfare, and autocratic cronyism in Russia. Some maybe good, some maybe extractive.
But more specific components are evidently required to convert the holistic defence of liberal Western individualism to one that has active implications for inhabitants to derive significant fulfilment.
But what if we could (nearly) have it all?
Delving too deeply into the age-old spectrum of when individualism ≥ collectivism is perhaps slightly outdated for the metaverse because they are less mutually exclusive. As mentioned, the meta-verse-utopia (with its abundant resources, enhanced competition, voluntary participation and right to exits) dictates the slight digital transition from zero-sum (individualism > collectivism) to a more positive-sum version (individualism <> collectivism), allowing the freedom to choose the preferred option at a more granular level rather than a one-size-fits-most.
How best to live as an individual amongst others?
Only a few extremists said individualism meant existing alone; most want just enough protections to choose if, when, and how they coordinate.
Back to the rebundling, using crypto (instead of legacy institutions) to coordinate trust between strangers and protect individual and collective rights. Any technology that can assist with balance without mandatory over-centralisation is very handy.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (inevitable entropic trend towards chaos) lays the rules for the nature of the metagame: to rebundle (albeit briefly) into social structures that are fulfilling for its human constituent parts that are both more expressive and antifragile (for a time) due to their nature of allowing the fullness of the microgame of humanistic entropy from start to finish; letting individuals choose the best version in the interim. Ideally, that microgame of choice (how centralised or decentralised) should be as wide as possible for the inhabitants.
Like their predecessors, these highly aligned global communities bridge the gap between the rather scary modern alternatives of total atomism or populism. Instead, these collectives are chosen rather than given, fluid rather than lasting, and casual rather than rigid, with as much focus on responsibility as individual gain.
How do we find a pragmatic framework rather than remain in the pejorative armchair or the overly prescriptive labs?
Many are practically unconcerned about whether they prefer individualist or collectivistic tendencies; they just want to be happy. I once wrote a revolutionary (very low 60s) paper on achieving happiness, and Ryan and Deci seemed to have many of the answers then, as it looks like they do now.
Self-determination theory (SDT) is practically concerned with how individuals can have a fulfilling life and the well-being of their relationship with broader society. It focuses on intrinsic and lasting well-being rather than the more fleeting variety.
Its meta-theory is called the organismic dialectical approach. It suggests we are active organisms with intrinsic motivational tendencies towards growing, mastering our surroundings, and integrating new occurrences into our coherent selves. As it is continually developed, more mini-theories are being added. One such mini-theory is the basic psychological needs theory (BNT), which suggests one can achieve fulfilment through the gratification of three essential psychological needs:
Autonomy: a sense of volition and self-endorsement of behaviours. The ability to achieve self-actualisation through a feeling of causal agency and the ability to make decisions in line with one's integrated self.
Competence: interacting effectively with one's environment and having opportunities for developing and expressing one's capabilities.
Relatedness: a sense of belongingness, connection, and care for others.
Fulfilment of these needs = the good life, and deprivation = the bad life.
Whilst this theory has roots in individualism through humanistic psychology, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and self-actualisation (how to achieve the fullness of one's potential), this motivation is not independent of the will of others but an overall feeling of liberty squared by relatedness (individualism <> collectivism).
Although these needs are equally important and applicable across various cultures, this essay will focus slightly more on autonomy but frequently address competence and relatedness (the definitions given above are sufficient).
In terms of autonomy, a broader definition may be necessary, but more specific variations will be highlighted where necessary. Individual autonomy (the process of self-governance) has many different types. To clarify the working definition, alongside the autonomy outlined by SDT (more external and related to agency), it will also include the slightly more internal characteristic of moral autonomy. To paraphrase Kant, people should have the option to be left to their own devices to find an optimal balance between desire and virtue. It emphasises the right not only to avoid overly prescriptive negative constraints but to develop a subjection to an internal moral law instead of heteronomy (outside of natural desire). This is not simply a hall pass to let everyone do what they want; it allows individuals to live in harmony with others and self-regulate through cooperative rational interaction (rational autonomy cannot be achieved solo).
But what do you get from SDT?
People with high self-determination tend to have high motivation, position their actions based on their own goals (internal locus of control), and, good or bad, take responsibility for their actions. It's already being used in sports, healthcare, education, work, mental health, gaming, and many others; as the metaverse will encompass all those things and many more, it's an appropriate lens. If the correct balance is achieved, the resulting inhabitants might be treated respectfully rather than the input for a calculation of extraction.
Much has changed in the transition from the early autonomous agent to now. We live in a duality with significant progress in protections for individual rights and subsequent competence, relatedness and autonomy in the physical realm. But the digital realm is lagging on similar rights and subsequent partial serfdom as in the Middle Ages. As the metaverse will encompass both, and the digital > physical creep only increases, there is significant room and necessity for improvement. To further narrow the scope, we will look at SDT concerning two contentious characteristics in the metaverse: ownership and surveillance and control. Both will be necessary tools for the new autonomous agent.
Regarding ownership, the open (almost mandatory) or closed (contradictory) approaches to the metaverse will have totally different approaches. The consequences of these approaches will be discussed along the lines of innovation, worldbuilding, governance, exploration, self-actualisation, and persistence. Ultimately, neutral digital property rights enable novel forms of the above and are considered necessary for many parts of a fulfilling metaverse and, thus, part of the toolkit.
Regarding surveillance and control, whilst we will undoubtedly need to connect with others to achieve relatedness, different approaches can be detrimental to autonomy. Existing structures and business models in the closed metaverse seek to undermine that autonomy and, through several externalities (tweaking humanism, AI and dataism, and censorship and manipulation), may result in unfulfilling landscapes. Privacy is thus an essential part of the toolkit to achieve the autonomous agent; by leveraging primitives as part of the open metaverse ethos, autonomy may be preserved, organic relatedness may ensue, and subsequent fulfilment achieved.