I saw an internet exchange about Second Life

Context
An e-mail I was reading today drew me to a blog on the American Library Association website called ALA Marginalia. On this post, both the main body and the comments caught my eye, because they contained a discussion of the accessibility of Second Life.

Second Life is a virtual world online where you can create an avatar and do stuff. I can't be any more specific than that because I'm not a member of Second Life.

Commentary
This year marks the second time I apparently neither saw nor heard anything during the month of August. There's a couple of posts during August 2007, but August 2006 is just as forlornly empty as this year. I'm sure that means something.

Second Life creates what seems to me to be a disproportionate amount of buzz in the library world. Workshops in Second Life are held about the special challenges of being a librarian in Second Life. I'm not saying this isn't the appropriate venue or that these challenges don't exist; I'm saying that I never hear anyone except librarians ever talk about Second Life, period.

Although I work in Information Technology I am far from the cutting edge when it comes to new innovations. I have a Facebook page but I never use or even look at it; I have a blog but I don't have a quick RSS feed button attached to it; I've generally find video on the web annoying. There's a difference with these sorts of things, though. I know they exist and I know other people in all kinds of contexts who love them and use them. Second Life produces, as they say in the comedy biz, crickets.

Putting aside ranting, I'm now going to address the comment exchange I said I was interested in. The complaint the 2nd commenter makes is a pretty common one in any world with divided classes. Essentially she's saying, "rich people have access to something others don't." By the way, "rich" here doesn't necessarily mean monetarily wealthy; it can apply to people who are rich in technological knowledge or youth or free time; the complaint remains the same. Anytime this complaint is made, one of the responses is possible:

1) "Too bad, suckers!", which is considered callous.

2) "Yes, we need to provide the benefit to everyone," which is what the blogger here responded (in comment #4) and is considered the progressive answer.

3) "Hmm, maybe we shouldn't bother with this technology if it's out of some people's reach." This is considered a regressive approach.

I'm not an advocate of the classless society. I think there are benefits to competition, some of which I've discussed in an earlier post. I therefore think it's possible to have the #1 response above and not be callous, although it would help to use nicer language.

#2 is lovely and caring-sounding, but also runs the risk of proposing the kind of limitless growth (Everyone is entitled to a big car! And a big house! And lots of meat!) that ultimately threatens our well-being in ways that go beyond just the environmental.

I find #3 particularly challenging. Progress is good, right? It depends; progress toward what? Quakers have a testimony of simplicity in lifestyle and if I scaled back to only those things that were available to everyone I would be living very simply indeed! As it stands, I try to consume luxuries mindfully, seeking to understand both the costs and benefits and to thank the Lord for every blessing that comes my way.

Which brings me back to my personal response to Second Life: I don't see much point in it and can think of many more interesting and productive ways to spend my time. So in my case, it is accessible to me and I don't want it! I would be callous indeed if I didn't recognize how blessed I am to be able to make a choice like that.

What did you see today?