Response: Week 12

Earlier in the week I proposed a question asking if there will ever be restrictions regarding virtual worlds since so many people are becoming addicted to them.  Following the class lecture today I am almost sure that restrictions on these games will never be created because, like so much else in our society, it’s about the money.

Why would people in China stop their gaming workshops?  They are creating products that aren’t real and in return, they are getting real money.  Furthermore, they are getting more money for their services in China than someone in America, doing the exact same thing, would receive.  Furthermore, if virtual money in some of these worlds is worth more than the money in some of the world’s more prominent countries, then no one would shut down this type of organization.  (This also says something about how pathetic some of the economies are, if virtual money is worth more.)

However, there is a big difference between what normally happens and what should happen.  If these virtual worlds are destroying relationships, causing people to become more violent, adding to weight problems and hindering people from doing well in their jobs or schools, then a change needs to be made.  No matter what the monetary rewards, if an activity is damaging emotionally, intellectually or physically it should be stopped-not monitored or cut back-but stopped.

While this could possibly be comparing apples and oranges, take other things which have regulations, like drugs.  These substances hinder people emotionally, intellectually and physically and they are therefore removed (as much as possible) from society.  The drug market has a huge, and profitable economy, and it was still regulated.  Thus emerges the question: Can something that technically isn’t real be regulated?  Would the government spend its time creating rules and regulations for something non-tangible?

Tags: response