While I agree with much of what she said, it seems that the critical issue is whether this becomes a *forced* thing or not.  In other words, if society wants to hop on the metaverse, then that's their preference.  The problem comes when people have no choice but to do so.  This doesn't mean that the metaverse is a good thing to begin with, but we can say that if people want to live lives of convenience by "living" in Mark Zuckerberg's digital world, then that is ultimately their own choice.  Yes, they are choosing their own demise, but no one is forcing them to do it.  If, on the other hand, people are effectively forced to participate in the metaverse, then it's another issue.  Or am I looking at this incorrectly?

I say you see it correctly.  If we are forced to be biologically altered to be plugged into the metaverse, or any other forced procedure, it should be abolished before it ever gets started.

I think the one kicker is that transhumanism might be presented as a choice in the present, but the pressure then builds up so as to effectively make it a necessity. 

For example, we can say that people living in 2003 clearly had a choice about whether they wanted to go online or not.  However, do people in 2023 still have that choice?  If they want to access certain government services, or pay utility bills, or do other basic tasks, can they do so offline?  I think the answer is still "yes", but it's becoming increasingly difficult (e.g. you might have to pay a fee to have a paper bill sent to you). 

I can imagine how in the future, commercial and government functions might only be possible by plugging yourself in to the metaverse.  Then, it seems like a convenient choice, but in reality you're being forced to do it.

Of course you can say the same thing about cars, trains, and airplanes to people who previously used the horse and carriage.  Technology is going to technology whether we like it or not.  Often times technology outpaces our ability to evaluate whether or not it is being ethically used.  Obviously some technologies are wonderful (horses say thank you), but others not so much (ask Dolly the sheep).  Humanity is at a crossroads where once we decide to embrace AI, Organ Cloning, Spike Protein Vaccines, Electric Vehicles, Social Credit Scores, Digital Currencies, and the Metaverse, there will be no going back to what it used to be.  Either keep up with the technology or get left behind and ostracized from society.  In other words, take the mark of the Beast or else...

So do you subscribe to the view that the course of future events in relation to technology can be changed, or do you think it's a foregone conclusion that our future is dystopian? 

In other words, given that there is already seems to be a push toward the Metaverse, social credit scores, etc., would we even be able to stop these?  If we try to stop them, aren't we just like the handful of horse-and-carriage riders in the late nineteenth century who are hopelessly complaining about the rise of automobiles?

I lean toward dystopian inevitability.

Posted by: @donaldbaker

↑

I lean toward dystopian inevitability.

😅🤔😮

I was trying to think of some technological advancement from history that could have been unleashed, but which was avoided or suppressed due to moral concerns.

The use of nuclear weapons is one, but that's highly controlled military matter that a minuscule number of people could ever access, so maybe that's not a good example.

Perhaps a better example is cross-breeding between man and animals.  The Island of Dr. Moreau was written in 1896, so the idea has been around for a long time.  I guess the fact that we don't have a race of dog-men running around is evidence that some dystopian technological inclinations might not be inevitable, right?