In recent years, virtual reality (VR) has been captivating the public's imagination. It redefined entertainment, communication, and even education by transporting users into fully immersive digital environments. But as technology advances many want to keep pushing the boundaries of virtual reality. This is done to a point where now some people are discussing the ideas of a realistic new world inside of your VR; where you can make connections, enjoy social networks, and have real world experiences. However, as we stand on the horizon of this new technology it's essential to ask: Should VR be something we use to enhance our recreational experiences, or should it become a new, alternate reality? While VR offers exciting possibilities, its role should remain firmly within the realm of recreation, rather than replacing the physical world with a virtual one.
Even if we wanted to, we are leaps and bounds away from where we need to be from a technological standpoint. In Slater and Sanchez Vives’ “Enhancing Our Lives with Immersive Virtual Reality“ they use a lot of what ifs, but never really demonstrate how they would develop such technology. Given my personal experience VR is a long way from feeling realistic. The motion is delayed from when you make the act of moving, the screen is pixelated, and there is no scent, touch, or smell mechanics; three huge pieces of our 5 scenes. When using an Oculus headset it felt as if I was using one, not as if it transported me to a new reality. My brain was still aware of my physical surroundings. Slater and Sanchez Vives state, "The gap between the real and virtual worlds is steadily closing, but there are still key differences in terms of sensory feedback and the richness of interaction" (Slater & Sanchez-Vives, 2016). Yes, the gap is closing because our technology looks and runs smoother, but no matter how good our technology gets, it will never be able to simulate another life like experience nor should it. When using VR I knew where I was and was cautious of my real world surroundings. Therefore no matter how much time, research, money, and effort is put into making this product realistic, it will never be an alternate world. It will always be in the realm of recreation for the purpose of only having fun.
VR is a lot of fun, and for some people it can feel slightly realistic; The counter argument shows evidence of people making online connections and it being a positive outcome that can allow for people to feel less lonely. But the problem with this is that if these shared virtual environments ever became realistic enough for them to be perceived as a new reality, it could cause problems throughout the real world. Section 6.3 states, “The technology allows people to communicate and interact in new and novel ways. However, even though the potential for telepresence is compelling, the richness of human interaction, including gestures, touch, and context, is something that is still hard to replicate in virtual environments.” (Slater & Sanchez-Vives, 2016). This potential for social connectivity is undeniable, especially when considering the rise of remote work and social isolation. Yet, VR should not replace the face to face interactions that form the foundation of human connection. The immersive aspects of VR can bring people together in a digital space, but it cannot replicate the richness of real world interactions. As humans, we communicate not only through words but also through body language, eye contact, and a shared environment. These cues, which are an essential part of human connection, are impossible to fully recreate in a virtual environment. If VR were to evolve into a new reality, it would risk isolating individuals from the physical world and depriving them of the deep relationships that come from being in the presence of others. Resulting in mental health problems such as stress and anxiety to be magnified when brought back into real world conversations, especially when things aren't as easy. Socializing in VR might be a fun novelty, but once again it should not be a substitute for real-world engagement.
In the article they discussed the possibility of transforming your body into a lobster and going about your normal day through VR. This sounds fun, but a person may lose touch with reality and act uncharacteristically. The text states “Immersive virtual environments offer a powerful illusion of reality, which can alter the way we perceive and interact with the world. While this can be beneficial in certain contexts, it may also reduce our engagement with the real world, leading to a diminished sense of presence and connection to the physical environment” . (Slater & Sanchez-Vives, 2016). This proves the extent of virtual reality, it should remain pointless and fun. The article talks a lot about how they are trying to improve technology so VR experiences are realistic enough to alter your actual life. But should they? This can cause danger to the user if they believe in an immortal false reality; not only that but your mental and emotional health could be greatly affected from switching back and forth between different lives. This could lead to a split personality-like experience, which is very harmful and one more reason why VR should remain just for fun.
Virtual reality undoubtedly has immense potential to enrich our lives. Its ability to simulate experiences, create shared virtual spaces, and offer new forms of entertainment is unparalleled. However, as Slater and Sanchez-Vives make clear, it is crucial that we recognize VR for what it is: a tool for enhancing recreational experiences, not a replacement for reality itself. By maintaining a clear distinction between the virtual and physical worlds, we can ensure that VR remains a fun, creative, and occasionally transformative without undermining the depth and richness of the real world. This is why VR should always remain a tool for recreation, not a replacement for reality.
Works Cited:
Slater, M., & Sanchez Vives, M. V. (2016). Enhancing Our Lives with Immersive Virtual Reality.Frontiers in Robotics and AI,3 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2016.00074
Image Source:
Headline Image
Image 1
