If you could live in a simulation...

Imagine you could be attached to a virtual-reality machine which ran an utopian simulation. It promised you everything; an extended lifespan, endless pleasures at your fingertips, the freedom to roam wherever you wished, safety from harm, the power of a God. Would you choose to plug yourself in? Would you experience a hyper-reality greater than anything you could have on Earth? I would not. Here is why.

i) It would not feel real to me: The challenges in life would have to be perfectly mirrored in the simulation for me to feel any sense of accomplishment - in which case, why be in a sim at all? I think the fact that life is once, and that it can all go horribly wrong is what makes it what it is. This 'yin-yang' of suffering and joy which we try to balance makes up the totality of our life. Whilst the worst forms of suffering are inexcuseable and must be eradicated, the 'normal' level of suffering for those of us alive today is part and parcel of being alive. It gives us something to push against, to overcome our selves and the darkness outside, to be virtuous in a world of hypocrites and expedient interests, to make the most out of what we have and truly achieve some moral, intellectual or artistic project. Will the Great Sim always be a roller-coaster of good, or endless tranquility, without challenge or woe? Will the Great Sim turn us into a flaccid, limp, domesticated, formless blob?

I think it would. Worse still, it would not even genuinely create sensory happiness. As all pleasures and experiences are relative to others (think of how much better water tastes when you are thirsty) eventually we would become accustomed to our simulated joys and would require ever new heights in order to feel those sensations. Those who could not control their sense of pleasure would be more like sim-addicts than free individuals. In short order we would take for granted the pleasures of the Great Sim, and remain as unsatisfied as we are in the real world!

ii) Lack of sentient interaction: If I was experiencing a simulation alone, I would be isolated from every other person and animal. Unless other people were also plugged in to my sim, and I knew this, non-sentient programmes could have no meaningful intentions toward me (i.e. love, hate and such). The difference between winning the trust of the next-door neighbour's cat and programming a robo-cat to auto-purr every-time you come to within three metres, is the same difference between the intentions of a sentient being and the intentions of a computer programme.

If there was a sentient artificial-intelligence programme in the sim, why be in a sim at all and not in real life? And if there was a sentient artificial intelligence in the sim, my actions would no longer have a consequence only on me - the consciousness of a sentient programme is as valid as my own. Once we start creating artificial intelligences, they have every right to life and liberty as any human-animal does. To use sentience as a means for our own ends is as immoral as slavery.

iii) Natural Intuition: Philosophers have asked since the dawn of thought: how can I know what is real? My answer to this question lies in something beyond the senses - a natural intuition. This intuition is the offspring of the 'will to live'; the evolved drive which pushes us to continue existing and replicating. It guides us to survival through a sometimes-hostile world. In short, there is more to our perception than the five senses. We have an inner-sense that cannot be fooled.

Regardless of whether we are plugged into a simulation or not, this natural intuition will be part of us. The 'parent reality' from which we evolved over millions of years will be distinguishable from virtual reality. Even if this intuition became totally obsolete (and to a great extent it is - we are no longer hunter-gatherers for example) it would still be active. If we could find a way to 'turn it off' we must then answer the simple question this raises: How much of myself can I alter before I cease to be myself?

iv) External control of the simulation: The technology to create virtual realities is not the province of science fiction: it could happen in our lifetimes. This may appeal to some people, but we must ask from a political-ethical perspective: who would control the sim? Suppose there was a Great Sim which enhanced our lifespan by hundreds of years - if it it could be hacked by a malignant entity, the person plugged in to the sim could suffer for the entirety of the simulation.

That is a suffering way beyond anything found in nature. Even prey being eaten alive by African hunting dogs will die eventually, the suffering that could be caused to human-animals or artificial intelligence is worse to a far greater magnitude.

Just as no one could have predicted the extent to which computer viruses would be launched against innocently gormless users, who could predict the malice of those who wanted to lock someone into a simulated hell? Even with safeguards (escape words to end the simulation, outside forces being able to intervene and so on) there is no guarantee that something will not go disastrously wrong.

Conclusion: The future is both exciting and terrifying. We might live to see technologies that radically alter our way of life: self-replicating robots, life-like simulations, quantum computers, cybernetic humans, genetic engineering, ever-faster modes of transport, digital sentience, extra-terrestrial colonies.

If we do not start to think now about these impending changes, we may not be prepared for the ethical challenges they will inevitably raise. The less aware we are of these massive paradigm-changers, the greater the likelihood that they will fall into the wrong hands, or be put to malicious use.

We need to start imagining our techno-utopian societies now; the degree to which we will allow good technology to alter our lives. By dreaming of a positive future, we might then strive to generate it.

Selim Talat