Are we still “Homo Faber” in Metaverse?
In Metaverse that resembles our reality, we may find ourselves living as distorted versions of Homo Ludens, stripped of our autonomy, or perhaps forced to conform to a certain mold.
Tools are never just a simple means to an end for human beings. Through tools, humans perceive the world, conceive and create their own unique cultural spaces and realities that stimulate self-awareness. That is, as Homo Faber — the creator — (not only as Homo sapiens, the rational beings), we construct the cultural world.
We are living in a world that is currently undergoing a transformation through the technological revolution, expressed by various names such as digital convergence, the fourth industrial revolution, and digital transformation. For humans, the world is not just a simple physical construct. And technology is not just a force directed outward, but also a force that returns to humans themselves. The civilization of technology has been the result of close interaction and growth between technology and humans. This interaction is still valid in the current technological revolution.
The rapid development of the digital technology revolution is triggering swift changes in a technological civilization. In many ways, the speed of this change is becoming overwhelming for us humans, especially for the “normal people” who make up the vast majority of the world’s population, and whose future prospects do not seem particularly bright. The most concerning aspect of this transformation is the shrinking scope of activities that only humans can perform. The potential reduction of the human labor domain, the most crucial activity in modern industrial society, is the greatest cause for concern. Perhaps, Hannah Arendt’s warning about the worst-case scenario of labor becoming unnecessary, even as the sole remaining activity of humans, may be more relevant than ever in this era of technological revolution.
“Homo faber is the human being as the maker or creator of artificial objects, tools to make tools, and to indefinitely variate its makings”
We do not wish for a future where human activity is in crisis. To avoid such a future, we may ensure that not only a privileged few but also ordinary people can secure possibilities for activity as humans beyond mere survival in that future time. In that possibility lies our ability to pursue and improve human life and the world. Hence, we must maintain our status as homo faber even in the time of the future. The possibility of existence as homo faber may be a prerequisite for the human future as a time.
Metaverse: Transcendence and Escapism
In the regard above, the importance of the metaverse cannot be overstated. As a result of the digital technology revolution, the metaverse has the potential to create a unique world in and of itself. While the metaverse has not yet fully revealed its true form, it may be a process or a destination leading to a transcendental world. In the midst of the various problems that humanity is facing in the current technological revolution, particularly the possibility of shrinking and constrained human activity, the metaverse may serve as an alternative space or world, a “different space,” and even a potential solution to current dangers.
Interest in virtual technology and virtual spaces has exploded in conjunction with the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the pandemic is not the sole basis for the growing interest in the metaverse. As we feel the constraints of reality amid the pandemic, it becomes closely related to virtual reality technology. This technology aims to create virtual implementations that are more realistic than reality itself, and the aspirations and desires of people who must be restricted from physical spaces due to the pandemic are being met by the direction and implementation of this technology. For example, attempts to offset the constraints of reality through proxy travel to virtual spaces or the emergence of virtual travel content using technologies such as Roblox, Decentraland, and Zepeto well demonstrate this trend. The recent interest in Metaverse is also taking place in this context.
During the emergence of the concept of Metaverse, cultural scholar Kenn Hillis analyzed the desire for bodily transcendence as a driving force behind the human inclination toward virtual reality. In this perspective, Hillis defines virtual reality as a machine that enables humans with limited life spans to transcend their physical bodies and limitations. Driven by the desire to overcome the constraints of time, humans have constantly strived for transcendence, resulting in a spatiality that differs from physical reality but is embedded in cyberspace. The metaverse, being a virtual space, is a product and continuation of this digital transformation, driven by this desire and its resulting series of developments.
In the Oasis of “Ready Player One,” a film that visually portrays the metaverse, the desire for bodily transcendence is fully revealed. The protagonist, Wade Watts, much like the character depicted in the novel Snow Crash, uses technological devices implanted in his body to enter a virtual space that transcends reality. The X1 suit, reminiscent of Iron Man’s suit, allows for a full sensory experience, maximizing the immersion of the soul attempting to escape the physical body and enter the virtual world. Through this device, a “virtual representation” is acquired, allowing the metaverse to be perceived as something akin to reality.
Through this virtual representation, the gap between the two realities gradually narrows. However, one of the realities is the one that people want to deny, while the other is the one they want to enter. As a result, the attempt to bridge the gap between these two realities actually amplifies their differences. This amplification triggers another escape into a different reality for everyone who is facing this situation as a reality, not just for a specific individual. As depicted in the movie, those who are addicted to the Oasis game, which is accessed for the purpose of escaping from reality, are not just Wade or his uncle. From the beginning of the film, almost all residents of the trailer park, in fact, except for some social classes, wear HMD goggles and pursue illusions in the fake reality of Oasis, constantly denying their real life.
However, can these people find salvation through such escapism? Does the new reality they choose as their escape truly provide a solution to the problems of the reality they are fleeing from? What kind of reality is it that they are trying to escape from? Even if our reality is harsh, if there is at least a glimmer of hope that it can be improved, we do not simply turn a blind eye to it. However, the people in Columbus’ world depicted in the movie, who may represent our future, are unfortunately trapped in a state where they cannot engage in any human activity to create and build their own world. This constraint on their aspirations triggers a denial of the reality they are facing. What they are looking for is a “different place” where they can expect to engage in human activities free from these limitations.
What do they expect to find there? If that place is truly different, it must be a reality distinct from the one they wanted to escape from, and they must be able to be free from the problems of the reality they were fleeing from. Will humans exist in that world as beings capable of engaging in human activities? If that world is truly a world of humans, are they able to perform activities to designate that world as their own? In other words, is that world an artificial world?
Human existence in Metaverse
Homo Ludens
The Oasis, as a metaverse, was also not created out of thin air. It was the brainchild of a man named Halliday. However, in the film’s future, the inhabitants are consumed with playing a game that Halliday had prepared, foreseeing his own demise. While they constantly log onto the Oasis to enjoy the game, none of them take the initiative to create their own world. Instead, they adapt to and accept the world that Halliday had constructed. In this process of adaptation, the future individuals in the film revel in the pleasure of hiding within the game. This joy of escapism is intertwined with their pursuit of exploring this world.
Games are rooted in play, and online games are no exception. From this perspective, the way the future people in the movie enjoy the game by hiding and seeking pleasure in this world could be seen as resembling the behavior of the Homo Ludens, the playing human. If we project the image of Oasis as the future of the metaverse in the way we are currently pursuing, what kind of existence will humans who seek pleasure without constructing their own world be in the future of the metaverse?
Many of the fundamental behaviors of human society have always contained an element of play. In short, by giving names to things, we elevated them to the realm of the mind. Through the process of creating language and speech, the mind, while playing, constantly sparked “flames” between material and mental worlds. Behind all abstract expressions lies a daring metaphor, which is actually a game played with words. In this way, as humans express their lives, they create a second world alongside the natural world, namely the world of language and poetry.
Johan Huizinga, who defined Homo Ludens, understood play as something that transcends the immediate needs of daily life. Daily life presents various problems, and our lives are sustained by the process of solving these problems. In this sense, the process of daily life can also be understood as a rational and intellectual process of problem-solving. Play does not fundamentally exist for the sake of this process of life as problem-solving. It is impossible to seek the foundation of play in rationality because the reality in which play takes place goes beyond the realm of human life. Through the recognition of play, that is, by recognizing oneself as playing and engaging in play, humans become a being beyond rational existence. Given the comprehensive scope of play, play cannot be an exclusive human property. However, the play of Homo Ludens is different. This is because the play of Homo Ludens can create a world of nature and language that is different from our own.
Play can never be reduced to a rational process. Therefore, Homo Ludens does not necessarily denote a rational human being. At the same time, Homo Ludens is a concept that defines the unique characteristics of human beings. However, being Homo Ludens does not mean that humans are solely defined as irrational beings. While Homo Ludens can be a defining characteristic of humans, it is not their only defining characteristic. Homo Ludens can be added to the list of terms that refer to humanity, right next to Homo Faber and at the same level as Homo Sapiens.
Human existence crisis: Separating “Homo Faber” from “Homo Ludens”
Humans are Homo Sapiens, but they are also Homo Faber and Homo Ludens. These three characteristics are not separate from one another. As previously discussed in the introduction regarding Homo sapiens, the existential characteristic of being Homo Faber is closely related to Homo Sapiens. The same can be said for Homo Ludens. As Huizinga put it,
“When examined in the broad sense of the Greek term poiesis (ποιησις; creation), poetry always falls within the realm of play.”
While Homo Ludens signifies a different set of characteristics from Homo Faber and Homo Sapiens, they are by no means exclusive of one another. Rather, these three signify a tense yet harmonious relationship, each possessing distinct traits that contribute to the creation of the human world, or in other words, the world of culture.
As E. Cassirer puts it,
“Dissonance is within itself harmony, and its oppositions are not mutually exclusive but rather dependent on one another. Harmony is within the opposition.”
These traits, being unique to each individual, collaborate as catalysts for the creation of culture. Therefore, the collapse of this relationship represents not only a crisis for the human world but also a crisis for human existence.
The inherent status of Homo Faber is actually diminishing, especially in the advanced industrial society. Within the rapidly changing landscape of this highly evolved society, we are currently facing the risk of losing our status as Homo Faber. The age of artificial intelligence, which is implementing autonomous decision-making abilities, also serves as a warning that machine intelligence may surpass human thinking abilities. The Neuralink Corporation’s brain-computer interface (BMI), which seeks to implant AI chips into the human brain to enhance human capabilities to cope with the functions of AI, is currently at our fingertips.
This highlights the precariousness of our status as Homo Sapiens. Furthermore, the emergence of a new type of humanity, such as transhuman or posthuman, which is entirely different from our current form, is a warning that arises from this crisis. Of course, we hope that such a future will not come to pass, but in this situation, we cannot confidently assert that the predicament of the future generation in “Ready Player One” is just a cinematic fantasy.
The greater concern is that the future inhabitants who enter the Oasis as a metaverse world will encounter the very same powers they sought to escape from in the real world, still exerting their authority within the virtual world. This possibility suggests that the metaverse world may be capable of faithfully replicating real-life structures and dynamics. If it goes beyond satisfying mere existence and replicates real-life issues, then the problems of reality could persist in virtual reality as well.
“Within the rapidly changing landscape of this highly evolved society, we are currently facing the risk of losing our status as Homo Faber.”
The crises facing Homo Faber and Homo Sapiens are real, and if Metaverse simply replicates the conditions that caused these crises in the first place, without addressing any of the underlying fundamental issues, then the problems of reality may persist within the metaverse. In a metaverse that resembles our reality, we may find ourselves living as distorted versions of Homo Ludens, stripped of our autonomy, or perhaps forced to conform to a certain mold. Whether we understand the metaverse as an extension of reality, a tool of reality, or a mirror of reality, this is a warning and a danger that cannot be ignored. If the future metaverse overlooks these risks and consequences, then the Oasis in “Ready Player One” may well become our own future.
Conclusion
We may find ourselves, like Karl Jaspers once suggested, at a crossroads where we must choose between the downfall or transformation of humanity. In such a situation, the choice seems clear. However, the direction and conditions of that transformation are far from clear. This is why the study of “humanity” is necessary, to determine what those directions and conditions should be.
In the midst of the powerful digital transformation we are currently experiencing, we have set for ourselves the daunting task of achieving an advanced technological progress in the future. The level and scope of convenience and prosperity that technology has provided us thus far are expected to deepen and widen as we tackle this task. While external changes are progressing at a relatively rapid pace, internal changes are not necessarily accompanying them. In fact, the quality of life is deteriorating, including the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Issues such as technological disparities are becoming more pronounced in response to technological progress.
The most serious challenge we are facing in the process of technological revolution is the loss of our potential to engage in human activities within the space we have called reality. If the possibility of such activity is destroyed, humans will lose their existential meaning and no longer be able to secure their necessities. Perhaps this is the point where transhuman or posthuman is born, as mentioned earlier. No one will probably accept such a future as our own.
To prevent this, we must at least understand the cultural conditions that we have lost as humans and strive to recover them. And the existence of the Metaverse should also be understood in this regard. If we cannot stably secure the possibility of unique human activities within the existing reality, we must be able to secure this possibility in another reality. If Metaverse is another reality, we can expect the fusion of Homo Faber and Homo Ludens as a condition for cultural existence through our activities within Metaverse. The future direction of Metaverse should be determined in relation to this expectation.
As mentioned, Homo Faber and Homo Ludens cannot be separate beings. The attitude of pursuing only one aspect of human nature or replacing one characteristic with another is never a valid future-oriented approach. While utilizing Metaverse is a crucial task for our future, actions without principles are likely to generate confusion and danger. Therefore, we must precede the discussion on the directions and approaches that can contribute to restoring the essential meaning of human activities. Only through such a preceding discussion can we secure the possibility that the metaverse can be an alternative in this age of crisis that we are facing.
Further readings:
Ehrmann, J., Lewis, C., & Lewis, P. (1968). Homo ludens revisited. Yale French Studies, (41), 31–57.
Gaver, W. (2002). Designing for homo ludens. I3 Magazine, 12(June), 2–6.
Huizinga, J. (2020). Homo ludens. Editora Perspectiva SA.
Oh, M. J., & Kim, J. (2021). An Essay on the Future of Metaverse as the Harmony Space Both of Homo Ludens and Homo Fabre. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 12(9), 127–136.
Author’s note:
I — Wangoo Lee — am a researcher in the field of leisure and travel experience, publishing scientific articles about pro-environmental behaviors of hiking participants and single-person households’ leisure constraints.
