Diary of a WoW Noob's Addiction

Noobab writes "There's an absolutely hilarious diary style article in CNET's Crave blog about Nick Hide's first experience playing World of Warcraft. It starts off pretty tame but soon enough the man has turned from unsuspecting casual gamer into a fully fledged 'Warcrack' addict." Your mileage may vary. From the article: "I can't say that I'm experiencing withdrawal symptoms after two weeks of fairly casual World of Warcraft play (a couple of hours a night, tops. Honest, doctor), but 'neglect of other activities' made me rather worried. Last night my girlfriend got hold of an extra ticket to Wicked, the new musical. 'I, er, I'm going out tomorrow night, I'd like to stay in and, er, get an early night,' was my pathetic effort at hiding my spiralling dependency on WoW."

Comments

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

[__aaclcg7560]

Day 1 - Played WOW
Day 2 - Played WOW
Day 3 - Played WOW
...
Day 69 - Looked in mirror and realized I became "He Who Has No Life". Then bladder burst opened, computer caught on fire and basement burned down.
Day 70 - Mom sent me out to the blue room with the bright light to get a job. Saw an ad to become a game tester.

Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[Bryansix]

I have never heard WOW called Warcrack but when I was in college Evercrack (Everquest) was all the rage. Many a freshman failed out because of it.

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[StikyPad]

Yeah, I actually preferred EQ, because it was NEW new. Nobody had ever done a 3D MORPG before, and it was just insane. There's nothing quite like 1000 level 1 characters running around with absolutely no clue what they're doing, or what they're supposed to do. (There wasn't the level of hand-holding back then, which was both good and bad). Later games, including the omnipotent WoW, just seem like rehashes of the same thing. Granted, EQ had become a complicated, noob unfriendly monstrosity by the time WoW came out, and many veteran players were tired of EQ, so that probably contributed to WoW's popularity.

I never really got into WoW though, despite my best efforts and friends that play religiously. I think the main reason was grouping. In EQ, grouping was essentially mandatory for efficient leveling. Grouping made gameplay more interesting, rewarding, and entertaining, although very often more frustrating. It also provided a bit of a safety net, since there was usually someone to make travel faster (teleport), ressurect, etc. In WoW, there are largely the same benefits to groups, but the benefits don't outweigh the drawback of waiting to find other players. It's simply faster to go solo for XP in almost every case. As a result, the people most desperately looking for groups are often people who can't survive on their own because they can't play their class effectively, so grouping is frequently disasterous in WoW. Even worse, when grouping IS required, people are so accustomed to soloing that they don't function well as a team. It's like watching the NBA "Dream Team" at the Olympics, where everybody's trying to be the star. I'm sure that probably changes at the higher levels, but I just didn't have the patience to continue the extremely tedious process of grinding through levels on my own.

Additionally, I suppose I had become disillusioned by the fact that any sense of accomplishment was fleeting and incomplete, with another "challenge" (aka time-sink) constantly waiting in the wings. The never-ending process of obtaining new items to enable you to fight new creatures to obtain new items to fight new creatures to obtain new items just gets old after a while. That's probably a good thing though, because for at least 5 years, I was an EQ junkie. I should thank them for making boring content, otherwise I'd probably still be one.

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[talis9]

And I failed at Uni three decades ago because I spent all my time in the common room playing cards.

Students failing is nothing new, just the reasons change. It doesn't matter if it is cards, beer, girls or computer games, students will always find something more interesting to do than go to lectures.

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[Bryansix]

This is true. For instance I found sleep more interesting then going to my Freshmen English class. I got unlucky and had a professor who actually took role and I was dropped from the class. It's kind of embarrassing to have to take English twice.

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[ShadowMarth]

I agree entirely. I've been hearing Evercrack for years, but Warcrack?

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[Boronx]

Additionally, I suppose I had become disillusioned by the fact that any sense of accomplishment was fleeting and incomplete,

Welcome to the world of video games.

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[Wolfkin]

"Grouping made gameplay more interesting, rewarding, and entertaining, although very often more frustrating."

Mostly the last. WoW is already plenty interesting enough solo, and I *most* *certainly* don't want my game playing to be anything like frustrating. It requires a group? I'll pass, thanks. I'm actually okay with groups where I'm just helping someone, but after about 20 bad experiences, I'm not interested in going into any instance I can't solo, and so when there are places that require a group in order to still be able to get XP, I'm off to do something fun, instead.

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[fotbr]

Sounds like me. Have a 51 hunter that I've been leveling off and on for 11 months (don't know how many hours, not going to log in to check), and have only been in three instances -- RFC, WC, and SFK. I skip quests I can't solo, unless I can group with some real-life friends that aren't assholes, don't screw up too often, and will put up with my mistakes without getting bitchy.

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[ozamosi]

The student councilor at our college actually has special lectures on how to manage school Even though you play WoW. Apparently, WoW is the number one reason for people to drop out, and is thus the colleges biggest enemy.

It's quite sad, really...

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[Metasquares]

Life is kind of like that too. It's amazing how quickly years of accomplishment can be negated or pushed aside.

Oddly enough, it's when I feel that way that I start playing video games, because though the accomplishments are fleeting in the real world, they persist within the world of the game. Gaming for that purpose may be like reading fantasy novels for the same purpose: a form of escapism from an overly-stressful world.

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[iceqieen]

*nod nod* so very true.

It's not the activitie's fault people get addicted to it, it's the people themselfs allowing themselfs to skip other things. Yes, wow is addictive but only as addictive as you allow it.. sport's addictive too but people aren't pointing fingers at that when someone spends all his time in the gym.. nooo then it's healthy and good.

all things in moderation is the key.

wow too.

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[Jorelli]

The friends list is for grouping, as are guilds. Grouping IS necessary to get many things accomplished in the game, just not until you get into dungeons. It's easiest to just pair with people until you actually need five people for something, then call out all those on your friends list. A lot of the best items are in dungeons that are impossible to do alone.

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[Xentor]

You bring up some valid points, but it's not ALL that bad. I've been playing WoW since release (Minus a 6-month hiatus when I got bored), and I've been in a lot of good groups and bad groups.

What you'll find is that every class in WoW is made to solo, specifically because there are a lot of people who just don't want to quest in groups. On the other hand, two complementary classes can perform MUCH better than any single one. A group of five, working together properly, is really a beautiful thing.

Unfortunately, there are, as you said, a LOT of players who just can't play well with others. This includes:

1) Newbies: Just coach them along, and they'll get the hang of it eventually. Insulting them won't help them play better, so try to be helpful instead of hostile.

2) Raider Alts: Most players who have a somewhat maxed-out character will create more characters to experience more of the game. SOME of these will be VERY over-confident and reckless, saying things like "It's not like this is MC or anything" (MC = Molten Core = One of the first endgame raids), forgetting that their character isn't exactly superman yet. Avoid these people.

3) Anyone who doesn't speak your language. No communication = No teamwork. Avoid these, too.

If you get a bad group, it can be either really annoying or EXTREMELY funny (Best part about having a guild, is having people to chat with to laugh about the idiots in your current party). Trust me, I've had some FUNNY ones... Most recent was a druid (Hybrid class) that refused to deal any damage because it wasn't her "style".

If you get a good group, it can really make up for all the bad times, because five people working in synch... well, good times.

Hopefully the changes in the next patch will cut down on the time it takes to FORM one of these groups, because on that point, I agree 100% with the parent. It takes way too long.

Disclaimer: Yes, I'm a lifeless computer geek, but after taking a six month break from WoW, I realized I wasn't doing anything interesting anyway, and I was just as bored. I know I'll get flamed for being an addict, anyway, but that's just slashdot.

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[truepinkas]

Grouping isn't required to level no, but it IS required to do any of the end game content. Dungions like Molten Core, Blackwing Lair, and AQ require well organized groups of about 40 people. This is where good guild structuring comes into play. In WoW it seems the thing is you level to 60 mostly solo, learn what the hell your doing with your class, then if your lucky you can do end game content with a guild.

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[xiong.chiamiov]

Hmm, that's (one of) the reason(s) I play Guild Wars... AI henchman ftw

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[brkello]

WoW is just as new to many plays as EQ was to you. I tried playing EQ and just couldn't get in to it. I played FFXI but the forcing to group to level killed the fun in that game. You had to have help to do everything. And the needed classes (like healers) were terrible people who didn't know how to play their characters because they could always find a group. WoW did suck me in. I liked the ability to level without others. I liked being able to do things by myself at my own time. I don't think you played WoW long enough to get to where it gets to the game that you like. Once you hit 60 you join a guild of people that run end game instances. Then you are forced to group and people who play poorly are not accepted or are trained pretty fast.

So yeah, it was probably good you quit when you did. I had to just decide one day there was better things I could be doing with my time and just uninstalled the thing and haven't looked back.

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[ajs]

Recall that the same was true of Dungeons & Dragons in the late 70s / early 80s. Many schools saw waves of students flunk out "because of the game." In reality, of course, the students were the sort to be distracted by shiny things, and D&D happened to be there at the time, but because it was popular enough to capture many of the shiny-challenged, it seemed that it was the cause and not the symptom. The same was true for the Atari and EverQuest. Now WoW gets the nod.

When will we understand that the "addiction" is to a time-killing hobby that involves a modicum of structured social activity for those who cannot or choose not to structure social activity on their own, and not to a particular hobby?

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[kionel]

Preach on, fotbr.

My wife and I tried EQ. The grouping requirement and assholic players drove us away.

COH was fun, but ultimately got dull because the only way to level was to group to do all of the instanced missions.

WOW has been a blast, but we simply don't group with others any more. After the third DEADMINES group whined and bitched non-stop about how things were going ("You're not healing us fast enough, Druid!" they'd yell at my wife, or "Don't ninja the loot!" they'd complaint to me, even though I was selecting 'greed' and not 'need') we swore off of them.

Since then we've been having a blast.

Do we level as fast? Nope. But we only play about four hours per week anyway. For us it's a distraction, nothing more.

Personally, I dread the day that a WOW-killer shows up on XboxLive. You think that dwarf named "Thunder-Nuts" was annoying on General Chat? Just wait until you can hear him bitch non-stop in your ear!

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[mightyQuin]

Has there ever been a slashdot poll for addictions?
Something like :

Slashdot Poll:
I am addicted to:
( ) MMORPGs
( ) Sex
( ) Crack
( ) Nicotine
( ) Caffeine
( ) "My Little Kitty" Merch
(*) Lurking about on Slashdot

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[Boronx]

True, but even if the real world seems at times to be as meaningless or success in it as fleeting as in a video game, there's at least the possibility that we're wrong and it's not.

Re:Warcrack the New Evercrack?

[StikyPad]

Thanks for reinforcing my point. There's no disincentive against grouping, so nobody does it, which only reinforces the incompetence.

As for soloing...

It's like playing a tennis ball against a brick wall, which can be fun. It can be fun, but it's not a game.
Right.
It's not a game.
No.
What you want is a partner to return the ball.

There's a reason the FPS genre almost always contains multiplayer content nowadays. WoW at least has its PvP battles, so I'll give it that.

Cost

[Joe The Dragon]

If it where free or cost you per hour in game then there likely less people Addicted to it as if you are paying $15 a month you feel like that need to play all the time to get most out of it.

Re:Cost

[frosty_tsm]

Agreed. This is possibly the #1 reason I've stayed away from MMOs.

Re:Cost

[TinyManCan]

I pay a hell of a lot more than $15 a month for cable TV. That does not make me want to watch it ALL the time, and I am well aware that I am buying channels that I never, ever watch. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Re:Cost

[Brown Eggs]

Wrong - I don't think cost is the key. Look at games like Maplestory or Runescape. Free games (mostly) but almost as addictive. I think it is the leveling, the competition, and all the little RPG elements that keep people coming back for more.

Re:Cost

[Feanturi]

I played MUDs back in the day. They were free and had no pretty graphics at all. They were every bit as addictive as the ones we have now. Rife with students flunking out, or people jeopardizing their jobs to play. So no, I don't buy the idea that the cost makes you want to get your money's worth.

Re:Cost

[kendoka]

I would disagree given that 15 bucks a month is cheap compared to even a split cable or cell-phone bill. Even if you play WoW for just four hours a week (which is pretty easy to do =)) you're spending 15 bucks a month for 20 hours of 'entertainment'. (All jokes aside as to whether one should be entertained spending most of their time walking from place to place and repeating the same moves on the same monsters endlessly.) That price makes WoW cheaper than just about anything short of kicking a soccer ball around, including watching tv, and renting movies. The only thing I could think of that'd be cheaper is renting a good game for 4 bucks and marathon playing it for 20-100 hours (which is often done)..

In my particular case, I also had a subscription to DDO and RFO for about 3-4 months and I almost never played them. (Literally, I paid and didn't play for so long I forgot I was still paying for it, as well as my password.) Instead I played Guild Wars (which is free) all the time; it was simply a better game (IMHO).

Re:Cost

[Jack9]

I've found that without paying for a personal trainer, I never would go to the gym.
Shame is the single most effective means of persuasion known to man (second is particular violence).
At $60 a session, I sure as fuck make my appointments and work my ass off.

YMMV

Re:Cost

[squidguy]

Bah...forget MUDs. There is a wumpus among us...

Re:Cost

[TrekCycling]

I was one of those people. I didn't flunk out, thankfully, but it sure had a grip on me for a while. I still worry today as someone who plays console games here and there and works in software that I spend too much time with the whole risk/reward system of gaming or programming and not enough time in the real world. I feel I do, but it's always lurking back there...

Re:Cost

[theantipop]

Diablo 2. I rest my case.

Re:Cost

[DaveV1.0]

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

Re:Cost

[gatzke]

Back in the mid 90s I saw MUDs take the life of a few at Georgia Tech. Decent GPA to 2.0 easy, loss of co-op position, etc.

I have periodically gotten hooked on nethack, which is just as lame as MUDs.

Hell, when I was a kid, I would play that terrible Atari 2600 PacMan for hour and hours and hours and days and days. Why?

With all the shiny graphics, this stuff is like super crack...

Re:Cost

[Faylone]

I can attest first-hand that MUD still cause students to flunk. I think just this semester I've spread the flunking to a new victim...

Re:Cost

[ultranova]

Shame is the single most effective means of persuasion known to man (second is particular violence).

Nope. Sex is the most effective means of persuasion, at least judging from the amount of people who risk extreme shame and often horrendous punishments to get some.

Re:Cost

[Jack9]

America is not unique, but in the clear minority when it comes to this. Sex as a motivator is simply a misperception.

Sex is a physical need akin to a drug addiction.
You could also say that physical drug addiction is the most effective means of persuasion, but you cannot be motivated to particular goals with that carrot (although there are certain minor tasks you can have someone do in exchange). It does not rank very high on the scale or long-term torture would consist of drug addiction and withdrawl.

treatment

[abe ferlman]

Serious question now- does anyone personally know of someone who sought treatment for WoW addiction? I don't mean you read about it in the news, I mean personally. People seek treatment when they realize they have other sorts of non-chemical addictions but even among the most obsessed WoWers I know, none of them seem to see it as a problem that requires intervention to solve.

Re:treatment

[TheWaz]

I haven't read or know anyone needing actual medical assistance when quitting WOW. I played the game for a while and got my character to 60, and also became an officer in my guild. After a while I wasn't too thrilled with the game and went cold turkey. I think the most intervention that is needed is for mommy to come over and tell the addict that it's bedtime.

Re:treatment

[Skuld-Chan]

Well for me - I really like to play it. I think about it at work etc - and if I have time I'll play it for 4 hours most nights - its fun what can I say?

I don't know of a single time though where I've refused to go somewhere to play wow instead. If its a nice day outside I'll be on the motorcycle tooling around town.

Re:treatment

[ectal]

Generally, I do think people exaggerate the seriousness of "Warcraft addictions". But I have seen some people who definitely border on addictive behavior. Ignoring most of their friends for weeks at a time, skipping sleep, not working, not eating regularly, etc.

I mean, to turn your question around, have you ever heard of someone with a serious gambling problem or heavy drinking problem who was positive they didn't need any help, someone who needed help but didn't look for it?

Re:treatment

[DragonMageWTF]

I don't need counseling. I will just wait until that quest has gone green in my log and should be able to solo it. Unless it's an elite or dungeon quest, then I will just find a group.

He needs to shoot little pengiuns down a hill!

[gunny01]

He needs to ease himself back to some sort of less addcitive gaming, like Line Rider.

Re:He needs to shoot little pengiuns down a hill!

[Vidiot3k]

I agreed with your comment until I realized you weren't talking about cocaine.

Re:He needs to shoot little pengiuns down a hill!

[Kankraka]

...Yeah, i think that app is going to be the reason I fail at college. I spent four hours (swear on it) messing around with it yesterday when I should have been studying. There's something exponentially addicting about it.

geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[theStorminMormon]

That's not WoW addiction. That's stupid addiction.

-stormin

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[Aadain2001]

I've found myself doing that once or twice long ago. I pretty much ignored my girlfriend for a few weeks back in the spring of 2005 when WoW was really starting to take off. But all it took was one go whap upside from said girlfriend to help me re-prioritize things. Now she comes before WoW, always. But even the best of people can make a stupid mistake and recover from it.

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[megaditto]

That's what makes this an addiction: rejecting the natural rewards (food, sex, sleep) in favor of a virtual reward of some sort.

If you need help getting rid of your game addiction, try imbibing some emetic shortly after you start playing (check with your doctor). Or try taking strong laxatives each time you go on a gaming spree.

Or even simpler, buy two galons+ of whole milk, then each time you score a "kill" or whatever it is you score in those games, reward yourself by drinking a whole glass.

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[theStorminMormon]

Sounds like good old-fashioned aversion therapy. And I've got to say that it doesn't sound a whole lot healthier than the behavior it seeks to rectify. On the other hand, I guess when "take a walk" doesn't work and you have to fall back on "overdose on laxatives" you really know you have a problem.

Then again, the mischievious part of me wonders if we should just let this gentle version of natural selection run its course.

-stormin

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[dangitman]

Now she comes before WoW, always.

So, WoW is like a post-coital cigarette?

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[Dhrakar]

Or even simpler: Don't pay the WoW bill. If you can't log in, you can't play :-) Oops! Scholo run ... bye!

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[megaditto]

Then again, the mischievious part of me wonders if we should just let this gentle version of natural selection run its course.

No we should not:
1) It would not be natural. It is man-made!
2) It is precisely the smarter, more intelligent people who have a propensity to become virtuality addicts.

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[dangitman]

Or try taking strong laxatives each time you go on a gaming spree.

I don't think having fecal matter all over my chair is going to help. Could be quite unhealthy from a disease perspective.

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[theStorminMormon]

Then again, the mischievious part of me wonders if we should just let this gentle version of natural selection run its course.

No we should not:
1) It would not be natural. It is man-made!
2) It is precisely the smarter, more intelligent people who have a propensity to become virtuality addicts.1. Yes, it is natural. Humans are natural. Unless you are supposing some fundamentalist version of creationism or other ex-nhilo origin for our species, we're basically just smart monkeys. And our use of computers is no less natural than a monkey's use of a stick or a crow's use of a rock. There's no rational basis for calling the actions or creations of human beings un-natural without recourse to superstition.

2. What does intelligence have to do with anything? Evolution has no values. It's purely about survival, adaptation, and successful procreation. The notion that we can define intelligence is barely more coherent than the idea that people or their creations are non-natural. The idea that evolution cares about intelligence is, if anything, less coherent. If intelligence helps you make tools, then great. It's a positive adaptation. If intelligence ensnares you in addiction to those tools (an addiction that clearly hampers procreation to some degree) than guess what - intelligence ceases to be an advantageous trait. Now personally I don't think it makes sense to equate intelligence with a propensity to become virtual addicts. I'd say that shows a blatant lack of intelligence in a very basic sense: the ability to make rational decisions against our own urges. But even if there is such a correlation, evolution doesn't care.

-stormin

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[Lord_Dweomer]

Exactly. And I post this everytime a story about MMORPG addiction is posted but for those wondering how it could possibly addict someone that badly, I STRONGLY urge you to read this excellent essay on how EQ (and games similar to it) are essentially giant virtual Skinner Boxes. Psychological addiction can be just as bad, if not worse than chemical addiction. At least with chemical addiction once its out of your system you stop craving it for the most part.

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[TempeTerra]

Call me stupid, but what's the milk meant to achieve? Back when I was played WoW, I'd consider 2 litres (half a gallon or so) of flavoured milk an excellent accompaniment to an afternoon of warcraft. I never noticed any ill effects.

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[Lehk228]

try making a whole gallon an addition to a single hour of anything

don't be too close to your computer when you do this

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[Boronx]

It's also smart, responsible, ambitious people that use birth control most effectively.

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[Austerity Empowers]

Priests reject sex (jokes aside). Are they God addicts? Something about this definition smells fishy.

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[drsquare]

What if she's a dog?

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[Ziwcam]

Priests reject sex (jokes aside). Are they God addicts? Something about this definition smells fishy.

IMO, its a possibility. I think *some* people (not all!) use religion as a crutch, when they fail to develop, or don't trust in, their own moral compass.
Those whose moral compass fails, and turn to God as a replacement for their addiction, become addicted to God, and would relapse if they abandoned Him.
The table could just as easily be turned. Someone who believed in God could turn to drugs to escape their belief, if they deemed it desirable to stop said belief.

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[cafard]

2) It is precisely the smarter, more intelligent people who have a propensity to become virtuality addicts.

If by smarter, more intelligent people, you mean the ones able to express themselves in advanced ways like "OMFG!!! we been raiding firemaw & we got PURE PWND!!!!!!!!! OMG OMG LOL LOL ROFLZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", then i'm glad to be a dork.

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[Shaper_pmp]

"1. Yes, it is natural. Humans are natural. Unless you are supposing some fundamentalist version of creationism or other ex-nhilo origin for our species, we're basically just smart monkeys. And our use of computers is no less natural than a monkey's use of a stick or a crow's use of a rock. There's no rational basis for calling the actions or creations of human beings un-natural without recourse to superstition."

Thank you, thank you, thank you. It's a pet hate when people indulge in pseudo-drippy-new-age "everything should be natural man... and not, like, all the artificial, y'know... stuff that harshes up our natural buzz..." bullshit.

Unless you can draw a line around "natural" and "unnatural" and sharply distinguish the difference, shut the fuck up with your romantic, luddite, wanna-live-two-hundred-years-ago-and-most-probably -die-of-tuberculosis crap.

I had a taxi driver once who found out I worked in computing, and spent an entire 30-minute ride bending my ear about how he hated "artificial stuff" and "that technology" and "liked things to be natural". He shut up fast at the end of the journey when when I enquired if he still ate his meat raw and lived in a tree.

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[Atheose]

I remember a few weeks ago my girlfriend came over on a Thursday and wanted me to go to a party with her. Thursdays were my guild's Ahn Quiraj raid nights, so at first I was pretty bummed and was trying to think of an excuse to tell my girlfriend. Then I realized what I was doing, gave myself a mental bitch-slap, and put my WoW account on hold the next day. I haven't looked back, though I'm thinkin about starting it back up for the expansion.

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[Zixia]

There's no rational basis for calling the actions or creations of human beings un-natural without recourse to superstition.

He didn't say it was 'un-natural', but 'not natural'.

It can be useful to have a distinction between 'natural' and 'man-made', as long as you realise that people use the word 'natural' as an antonym to 'man-made'. I would think it absurd to consider nuclear power stations as 'natural' just because humans built them and humans are a part of nature as a whole. In the same way, I wouldn't consider a bird's nest to be naturally-occurring either; I wouldn't see one in a tree and think that the twigs came to be in that formation 'naturally'.

I would say you are being unnecessarily strict about the use of the word 'natural', in a way that is not informative nor useful in the real world. If everything is natural, what use is the word?

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[Atheose]

What does intelligence have to do with anything? Evolution has no values. It's purely about survival, adaptation, and successful procreation

Intelligence has nothing to do with adaptation? One would think creating tools and developing agriculture would be classified as both intelligent AND adaptation, both of which were crucial to Man's rise to the top of the food chain.

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[Morphine007]

I think you forgot a ROFLCOPTER in there somewhere too....

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[theStorminMormon]

I would say you are being unnecessarily strict about the use of the word 'natural', in a way that is not informative nor useful in the real world. If everything is natural, what use is the word?

That's kind of the point. It's a useless distinction. I find that most of the time when people use the word "natural" they are refering to something man-made, but they are ALSO assuming some non-existent distinction between something made by people and that natural state of things. Trouble is, people (and their activities and creations) are part of the natural state of things.

In this frequently-used context it is useless. That's why I wish people would stop using it.

-stomrin

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[theStorminMormon]

The point I'm making is simple. There are no values to evolution other than survival. The "worth" of intelligence, from the standpoint of adaptability, is entirely contingent. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't. When it helps, great. When it doesn't, too bad. It's the same as, say, coloration. Sometimes green is better (say for hiding in leaves) sometimes brown is better (say for hiding in the dirt). Intelligent isn't inherently any better than stupid than brown is better than green.

Of course, intelligence has had a lot of use for us in the past in building tools, etc. But that's because, analagously, we've been living in a desert. The second it stops being conducive to survival, it stops being advantageous.

-stormin

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[steveo777]

Most of those methods don't work in the days of hi powered laptops and wireless internet.

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[Prien715]

There's no rational basis for calling the actions or creations of human beings un-natural without recourse to superstition.

Want to try and define justice with the same restrictions? Euthyphro tried. By your logic, justice doesn't exist. If you're will to accept that, fine.

Also, my periodic table also has the word "natural" on it, referring to elements not occuring in nature. By your logic, my perdiodic table's is deistic or absurd.

Alternately, perhaps I can persuade you to use the term "man-made" instead. While crows use rocks and monkeys use sticks, there's no evidence that either of these specifically created tools to accomplish their tasks....

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[theStorminMormon]

Want to try and define justice with the same restrictions? Euthyphro tried. By your logic, justice doesn't exist. If you're will to accept that, fine.

This is a colossally mis-aimed attack. I said that there's no way to call the actions or creations of humans non-natural. I never said they didn't exist. Why would I apply these "restrictions" to defining justice? I'm not trying to define anything. You may as well have asked me to garbiculate a froobernackle with those restrictions.

Also, my periodic table also has the word "natural" on it, referring to elements not occuring in nature. By your logic, my perdiodic table's is deistic or absurd.

Do you habitually use your periodic table of the elements as a guide to philosophy? The distinction of elements as "occurring in nature" or "only created by men" is a real and valid distinction. I just think that labeling that distinction as "natural" vs. "non-natural" is absurd. It doesn't follow that the entire table of elements is absurd, by the way, just that the attempt to use some arbitrary labeling from that table in a wider philosophical sense is absurd.

Alternately, perhaps I can persuade you to use the term "man-made" instead. While crows use rocks and monkeys use sticks, there's no evidence that either of these specifically created tools to accomplish their tasks....

Then you would be substituting a ridiculous and ill-defined mythological term with an arbitrary, but entirely useful, definition. If you were to do so I would shake your hand and say "thank you for using a well-defined term and abandoning that derelict myth".

-stormin

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[Prien715]

You say that one can not validly call something "natural" without implicit reference to deistic creation. I say that it's possible to refer call something "justice" without refering to similar deistic implications. In both cases, it's a reference to a definite object without a methodology of definition.

However, if you are trying to argue that the actions/creations of humans are natural because humans are natural, I would then ask you for an example of something "unnatural".

Then you would be substituting a ridiculous and ill-defined mythological term with an arbitrary, but entirely useful, definition.

Almost all definitions are arbitrary but useful=) There's no reason a spectrum of light between two certain wavelegnths ought to be called "blue". It's arbitrary, but useful. I don't see why this makes the word "unnatural" useless.

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[theStorminMormon]

However, if you are trying to argue that the actions/creations of humans are natural because humans are natural, I would then ask you for an example of something "unnatural".

That's the whole point! There is no example of something "unnatural". So the whole term is a waste.

Almost all definitions are arbitrary but useful=) There's no reason a spectrum of light between two certain wavelegnths ought to be called "blue". It's arbitrary, but useful. I don't see why this makes the word "unnatural" useless.

Right, it's that it's both arbitrary (doesn't proceed logically from any axioms we need to accept) AND useless because nothing is unnatural (without superstition). Thus it's a useless term and (being arbitrary) there's no reason to keep it around. One could imagine a useless term that followed logically from some accepted axioms (and thus was non-arbitrary). Such a term might not be useful, but we can't get rid of it without throwing our axioms into question.

-stormin

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[gray code]

Out of curiosity, would your view on the matter change any if you had a "sit around the table playing with buddies" on Thursday night instead?

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[Prien715]

Last comment, you accepted "man-made" as an arbitrary but useful definition of "unnatural". Why not just accept when people are talking about "unnatural", it means "man-made" (as this is a term we'd agreed as abitrary but useful (like "blue"))?

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[theStorminMormon]

Because usually it's obvious from the context that they are bringing a lot of additional baggage along when they use the term "natural". Consider the original quote that started this discussion:

Then again, the mischievious part of me wonders if we should just let this gentle version of natural selection run its course.

No we should not:
1) It would not be natural. It is man-made!
2) It is precisely the smarter, more intelligent people who have a propensity to become virtuality addicts.

Notice that in this case natural is being used normatively and not descriptively. It's not merely an adjective "this suitcase is man-made/artificial/non-natural, while this fern is naturally occuring", but it's actually even worse, there's an implicit (and entirely unjustified) value assertion as well. Natural is better.

My main problem is with the normative nature of the term "natural" in general use. My second problem is that I think that all human activities are natural (because we are natural) and therefore it makes sense to call a suitcase "man-made" or "artificial", but it does NOT make very good sense to call a suitcase "non-natural". Unless you're superstitious, everything is natural.

-stormin

Re:geek rejects girlfriend for Wow?

[Prien715]

Scientific use of the word "natural" refers to man's activities as artificial or "non-natural". See Artificial Selection vs Natural Selection or natural climate change vs man-made climate change.

If everything were natural, "natural" would be meaningless (which I suppose, is what you're arguing).

Hehe

[everphilski]

I was one of the ones that was addicted to Evercrack but made it through school... now a successful engineer who still plays (just put my trader up in the bazaar... things never change :)

Addicted to Warcrack?

[spun]

Who the hell checks themselves into a rehab center for World of Warcraft? WoW is not a drug. I used to suck dick for coke. You ever suck dick for WoW? NO! I didn't think so.

Re:Addicted to Warcrack?

[Attrition_cp]

Want another hit?

Re:Addicted to Warcrack?

[treak007]

i know some people who would suck dick for better gear in wow

Re:Addicted to Warcrack?

[ni42]

WoW is cheap and not illegal, eliminating the need to suck dick for WoW. I'm willing to bet there are people who would if they had to.

it's also par for the course

[circletimessquare]

you know you're addicted to something hard when the potential for sex becomes less attractive to you

and it happens all the time with warcrack

Re:it's also par for the course

[Knara]

Or that the sex isn't as fun as the game. How one discerns which is actually the case, I leave to the reader as a thought experiment.

Re:it's also par for the course

[mjhacker]

When you're married and have sex all the time anyway, MMOs seem a bit more exciting. Not that sex isn't good, but when it becomes a function as commonplace as eating, it loses its novelty.

Re:it's also par for the course

[Miniluv]

Variety is the spice of life. Or there's always cyber: http://crystaltips.typepad.com/wonderland/2006/01/ world_of_warcra.html

Re:it's also par for the course

[Suzumushi]

When you're married and have sex all the time anyway I'm guessing you're not married...

But yes, when you start to choose spending time with WoW over spending time with your family, you've crossed a line that you shouldn't have.

Re:it's also par for the course

[mjhacker]

Married for 2 years and 4 months. I still get it all the time with no sign of slowing.

Make Love, Not Warcraft

[javaxman]

South Park, anyone ?

I don't even play the game, but that was a god damn great episode. The referenced Wikipedia page claims Blizzard helped with the machinima ( and apparently, the delay ) in the episode.

but seriously, the point where you know you have a problem is the point at which you're picking your hobby/addiction/whatever over your S.O... time to kick either the hobby, or if they're really that unsatisfying, the S.O...

Re:Make Love, Not Warcraft

[tcopeland]

> I don't even play the game, but that was a god damn great episode.

Two favorite lines:

"This could be the end of the world... of Warcraft."

And:

"How can you kill that which has no life?"

It's not the game, it's the person.

[friendofish]

You always hear of people losing their wives "Because of WoW" or forgetting their family "Because of Everquest". No, they lost their self control, they lost their loved ones because of themselves. They are the only ones to blame.

Re:It's not the game, it's the person.

[TrekCycling]

Of course the game is never to blame. But you could say the same thing about workaholics, gambling addicts, etc. The bottom line is that for people succeptible to addiction, certain things are more addictive than others. Would make sense that certain games are more addictive than others. Either way, when it's all said and done, it does come down to people and their psychological issues that need to be addressed seriously.

Re:It's not the game, it's the person.

[Sabalon]

Was playing WoW Saturday while my wife was xmas shopping. Kids were done cleaning up and wanted to go outside an play. Typed /quit and out we went. Was pretty simple. Didn't take the notebook outside to play it or anything.

Then again, I'm a trial member...maybe if I was paying.... nah... kids and wife come first. Not that difficult really.

Addicting?

[theCurse]

I don't get it. I can't even get addicted to an MMO. I've played WoW, CoH, GW, and various others, and I just don't get the allure. I admit while I played them, I played them all day, ignoring sleep, food, etc., but I eventually became bored and moved on. Now you'd be hard-pressed to find me on Guild Wars, and I don't even have to pay for that.

Shouldn't there be at least 5 parts before

[Rooked_One]

submitting it to slashdot? I'm not trying to troll, I guess two parts isn't enough when it comes to something like explaining a gaming addiction...

staged addictions != news

[graycode10]

thanks zonk, it was fun to watch this man's epic journey from installing the game all the way to... his second post a few weeks later. why are we listening to a person with a character in its mid-teens and two weeks' experience? i'm willing to agree that the game can cause problems, but i'd rather hear a testimony from a person with 200 days /played, not someone who still has the crinkled cellophane on his desk and *gasp* skipped a night with his girl so that he could find his class trainer... i also like how the articles feature a night elf with a big lit doobie in his mouth. um... a real addiction is something that catches you by surprise. a staged addiction for publicity is one that you go into expecting to be addicted, complete with funny clip art and a spot on a major web page. and i'm sorry to be so bitchy, but i'm tire of people using the term 'warcrack' like they are the first person to ever do so. yes, we get it. please stop wasting our time with things like this, slapping "WoW" onto the title to get us to click on it and start our daily south park reference banter. (yes, it was a great episode) but i think i am more upset with cnet for printing this crap than i am at slashdot for linking it.

Re:staged addictions != news

[14CharUsername]

Yeah, if my girlfriend had tickets to a musical, I'd make an excuse not to go. I guess I'm a WoW addict too, though I thought you actually had to play the game to be considered an addict.

Solution - Get a life.

[pla]

No. Seriously - I mean this as neither a troll nor flamebait - If you have started sacrificing real life experiences for virtual ones that actually cost you money...

LEAVE THE FUCKING BASEMENT!


If you have nothing better to do, great, waste a few hours playing WoW. I'll admit, I accidentally saw more than a few dawns like that in college, mudding away the night. Amusing way to pass time. But when real entertainment comes along - DO IT! You don't even need to think about which you prefer - reality wins, every time. Even something like going bowling with your Aunt Sally and ther annoying hellbrood should beat wasting your life in an online game.

Re:Solution - Get a life.

[blahplusplus]

"LEAVE THE FUCKING BASEMENT!"

I know this was meant to be funny, but to be serious for a moment. Those who still live in the basement have more serious issues beyond WoW my friend, clinical depression and possible abuse being one of them.

The psychological rewards caused by natural selection can be ruined if a minimum of some of maslow's hierarchy of needs cannot be maintained. Because some serious exterinal or biological factors interfere with social and occupational functioning, causing unnatural stress and agitation on a persons nerves to the degree the wish to cease to exist to escape the cage constant stress and agitation they find themselves in. "Depression" does not in any way capture what a clinically depressed person physically feels. Anyone interested in understanding some of the evolutionary aspects of depression better can go here - http://biology.unm.edu/Biology/pwatson/public_html /dp1.htm

I've experienced clinical depression all my life, I shit you not, it's not a fun thing to know that for your entire life you do not experience life like everyone else, you do not enjoy things other people enjoy, and even the things you should enjoy... eating, sex, social life, company, take a back seat when you are clinically depressed.

The below is taken from Altruists.org :

Is Depression (i.e. and its consequences like addiction, etc) a Healthy reaction to a Sick Society?

"To demand that our children feel well in the world which we leave them is an insult to their dignity." Ivan Illich

The World Health Organisation defines depression as a 'disorder that presents with depressed mood, loss of interest or pleasure, feelings of guilt or low self-worth, disturbed sleep or appetite, low energy, and poor concentration'. It declares that it is the leading cause of disability, worldwide, and by 2020 it will be the second most important disease worldwide.

WHO goes on to say that in most cases, drugs are an effective treatment. This reflects a materialistic worldview that focusses on symptoms, not root causes. A multinational drug company has claimed that "depression is caused by an imbalance of brain chemicals", but this fails to explain why it is more widespread than ever before, (9.5% of US adults suffer from a depressive disorder in any one year) and why it is still spreading. Depression is not just another disease. If it is not caused by pathogens, how can it spread?

Maslow's hierarchy of needs predicts that if securely fed and housed, people's well-being depends less on material goods, more on factors such as good relationships with and love of others. However, most people are in the thrall of an economic system that ignores this fact, punishes generosity but rewards unnatural selfishness. This results in cognitive dissonance, because people feel forced to do things of which they disapprove, leaving them feeling guilty, disempowered and depressed. This would seem to explain why depression is booming even amidst materially prospering populations. Although a human tragedy, this epidemic of depression is a boon for the economy, since consumer culture feeds off people's low self-esteem by encouraging self-indulgence and escapism, resulting in a vicious circle of increasing consumption and decreasing well-being.

We believe many depressive symptoms are a natural response of the mind to an unhealthy, unsustainable, diseased and generally distressed society. Many of those who dismiss it as being an 'illness' of the brain, are sadly mistaken, others cynically exploiting it for their own benefit. Among the chief causes are the priority given to the competitive money system which discourages healthy human relationships to the point where, starved of friendship, some people even question the validity of loving others. Altruism is a side-effect free, natural way to cope with depressive symptoms and to live a longer, healthier and happier life.

Re:Solution - Get a life.

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

Even something like going bowling with your Aunt Sally and ther annoying hellbrood should beat wasting your life in an online game.

That's what Wii bowling is for silly!

Re:Solution - Get a life.

[Chris Burke]

That was a great rant, Mr. Homeless Person On the Corner, but I will not give you a dollar!

Man, now I'm bummed out.

Re:Solution - Get a life.

[crabpeople]

I never saw the link between depression and altruism. wow.

Makes sense why I highly value honour now.

Re:Solution - Get a life.

[A_Non_Moose]

The World Health Organisation defines depression as a 'disorder that presents with depressed mood, loss of interest or pleasure, feelings of guilt or low self-worth, disturbed sleep or appetite, low energy, and poor concentration'.

example: Yankee living down in the South.

If it is not caused by pathogens, how can it spread?

Uhhh, we eventually wisen up and move back to a better place, and like exposure to anything harmful/infectious...some of it always tags along.

After suffering with a low grade infection for almost 2 years (was 1/2 time, odd hours, collected
paycheck and thought it was a lack of motivation, IMO) that culminated in sinus pain that was a 9 on the Richter scale.

The point is it took a while to recover to the point of feeling human again, much less alive/better.

Gaming has declined greatly in the past few years, and I'm considering picking it back up
very heavily again.

Here's why, in a nutshell: .edu/college, you'd thing intelligent, attractive, hetero(hell, even bi) and single women would abound. Sorta...pick one or two at most. Like the intelligent and attractive lady I met who eventually
mentioned her fiancee...though oh, well, and then I hear the pronoun "she" in relation to the fiancee. I then thought, "oh, shit". It got better when we found out we had the same weakness
for red-headed women.

Worked in the sch of social work, and let me say that teaching women gurellia warfare of the mind is a bad idea (tm). I'd rather jump into a chicken-wire hammock face first than date those looney toons. Strangely, the married, engaged and gay women were nice and well grounded (big suprise).

Wonderful girl that I talked to for over 2 hours and said "husband"...Bwaaah-ha? Oh, yeah, married with the god damned ring on a necklace nicely tucked in her shirt. Grrrr.

One place, the longest time a girl was single was ~ 2wks, shortest was 3 days. Uh-huh.

One young lady all but jumped on me to get my attention. Sadly, it wasn't until I started coming out of the fog and I was figuring out WTH was going on until 3 months later. Yeah, that's how bad it was. dammit. Smart, cute and single. And I was brain-dead at the time.

"LEAVE THE FUCKING BASEMENT!"

Uh-huh. I'm smart, I'm funny, I'm charming, I've got my own house (one reason for staying), good job, excellent boss and all that.

Would I drop gaming for a GF? Yup?

Vice versa? Oh, hell no.

Can I win for losing? see v/v.

You've got a good point and sources, but situation, location and circumstance have a *LOT* to do with it.

What an Idiot

[matt74441]

He really should have gone to the stupid musical. Everyone knows that girls will "reward" their boyfriends later for being a good sport and going, at least thats how it happened with me.

Re:What an Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you start seeing sex as a reward for doing what she wants she has you by the balls.

Re:What an Idiot

[vaderhelmet]

That's the idea!

Played for two weeks

[Datamonstar]

.... and yes, battlegrounds are crackity crack crack! But still.. my interest is waining quickly. I've gone from 4 hours a day to only two hours this week. AND we had an ice storm today. that had everyone at home, but I still only logged three capture the flag matches before I got back to something else. I played Everquest for about 6 years and after that, you just don't want to log those sort of hours in a game anymore. Believe me. Once it's worn off it's worn off for good. It doesn't matter what the next game is going to be. Unless you happen to just LOVE mmorpg's your addiction will eventually burn out over time.

Re:Played for two weeks

[Rayonic]

.... and yes, battlegrounds are crackity crack crack!

You'll probably love the upcoming Arena-based PVP matches. Not to mention the other stuff coming in the expansion.

Personally, I got tired of Warsong Gulch after a few days at level 19. Mostly because of the lame twinkers.

Re:No original games? as if

[Kabal`]

Who says 'reality' (whatever that is?) is better. How is going bowling with Aunt Sally and her annoying hellbrood better than Warcraft? You're still playing a game (bowling vs wow) only in that situation you're with people you don't really like. I fail to see how that is any better.

Too much of ANYTHING is bad but World of Warcraft is surely 'better' than a lot of real life activities (for them), otherwise people wouldn't enjoy playing

Re:Could someone please enlighten me

[geminidomino]

Nope. I'm subscribed, and I get that message all the time.

Re:Could someone please enlighten me

[ozamosi]

I've heard it's there to give the trolls a harder time - they can no longer reload the front page and just submit "first post!" as soon as something turns up. However, it sounds quite silly, since it'd just create a single extra page to reload...

Is it just me, or are we sounding like the crew on the ship that crashes on earth to create our population in Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy?

Semantic argument

[FallLine]

There's no rational basis for calling the actions or creations of human beings un-natural without recourse to superstition.

Cool!! So you mean I can safely smoke all the crack I want because it is natural?

In all seriousness, I think what the previous poster that you attacked meant is that it is very much artificial. Highly artificial things, especially that which we have only been exposed to over a decade or two at most (never mind thousands and millions of years), is perhaps best approached with some degree of wariness.

If you wish to look at these sorts of games from an evolutionary point of view, then you might consider that humans do not have any adaptations to deal with it appropriately since we have not been exposed to it for generation after generation. We might enjoy sex to the exclusion of all else, say, but our organs simply won't allow us to go at it for very long. We might enjoy sports, but our bodies are apt to give out on us first (and send you warning signs well before you collapse). We possess no such mechanisms to inhibit abusive behavior such as this (especially in the modern world where enough food and shelter can be had by many if not most Americans with none to relatively little effort)

Re:Semantic argument

[theStorminMormon]

Cool!! So you mean I can safely smoke all the crack I want because it is natural?

You're kind of missing the point. The whole concept of "natural" is a giant cultural myth. There's this idea that things that there is a state of nature that is healthy, safe, happy, with flowers and rainbows. I'm not just attacking the characterization of games as un-natural, I'm attacking the whole stupid myth. It's the same as the old "noble savage" stereotype, but it's applied to the world around us instead of oppressed peoples. The result is the same, however. It's like people who get so caught up in how cute animals are that they forget they are animals.

So yeah, crack is natural. But you can't smoke it without ill effect because there's nothing safe about nature. (See? It's the concept of "natural" that I'm attacking again, not any specific application of it.)Gravity is natural too. Try jumping off a cliff. See how that works for you. Black holes are natural. If you ever have a chance, why don't you pop inside and have a look around one. I can't state this firmly enough: this naive belief in "nature" (as in "natural") is a ridiculous myth with no ratinoal basis in reality. Rattlesnkaes and bunny rabbits are both natural, and it's natural when the rattlesnake eats the rabbit

If you wish to look at these sorts of games from an evolutionary point of view, then you might consider that humans do not have any adaptations to deal with it appropriately since we have not been exposed to it for generation after generation... We possess no such mechanisms to inhibit abusive behavior such as this

1. This is a good point, but you are referencing the novelty (newness) of the games without any reference to an absurd cultural myth about what it means to be "natural". There's nothing unnatural about a new set of circumstances that creatures have to adapt too.

2. In my opinion there's more to evolution than genetics. There's also behavior. This doesn't contradict your point, but it does point out that we might not necessarily need genetic adaptations to cope with the changes to our environment. Behavioral adaptation may be sufficient (and would probably operate on a much shorter time scale).

-stormin

Re:Semantic argument

[FallLine]

You're kind of missing the point. The whole concept of "natural" is a giant cultural myth.

No, I'm not missing the point. I agree that there are a lot of people out there that have an irrational view of what is "natural" and overplay the importance of it despite all evidence to the contrary. It is one of my pet peeves too. ("grocery store produce is engineered/bad, eat local/natural".... completely missing the point that 95% of the stuff they eat wouldn't be available were it not for modern and historical technological advancements)

On the other hand, like any other contentious issue, it is also possible to over-react to it. More specifically, some people completely fail to acknowledge that the degree of artificiality of a thing can be highly relevant. Humans have largely adapted to that which exists in nature (without the assistance of humans) and, to a lesser degree, that technology that humans been created, modified, exploited by mankind for thousands of years (e.g., heat, man-made shelter, clothing, agriculture, etc). Therefore, it stands to reason that that which is highly novel, i.e., highly artificial, may represent an increased risk in practice.

Those people on slashdot, for instance, that spew out knee-jerk reactions against concerns over abuse of these massively-multiplayer games and dismiss it by saying it is just like playing sports or anything else may, in fact, be missing the point (especially when there are many real examples of abuse).

Gravity is natural too. Try jumping off a cliff. See how that works for you. Black holes are natural. If you ever have a chance, why don't you pop inside and have a look around one. I can't state this firmly enough: this naive belief in "nature" (as in "natural") is a ridiculous myth with no ratinoal basis in reality. Rattlesnkaes and bunny rabbits are both natural

Yes, there are dangerous natural items abound (very few rational people would dispute this if asked a pointed question about it). However, we humans have a natural fear of most of those things that are dangerous items in the natural world (or, if not, we're taught to fear it or avoid it). Most humans don't jump off cliffs unless they mean to kill themselves. Most humans run away from snakes. Most people don't eat foods that we don't know to be safe and edible. We have never and will never encounter blackholes, so we don't need to fear them.... We don't have these mechanisms to regulate our usage of these games.

I am simply advocating a balanced view. My point is not that artificial items are necessarily bad, but that they can be. The degree artificiality is relevant and, I would argue, makes it more likely to be harmful than, say, Grandma's cookie recipe. We don't need to worry about that which has existed for millenia to nearly the same degree--we know the risks, we are programmed to avoid/control them, we are taught how to respond, etc.

In my opinion there's more to evolution than genetics

I agree that societies evolve and that this is highly important. However, most scientists would take great exception to conflating and expanding the theory of evolution to areas outside of biology.

Behavioral adaptation may be sufficient (and would probably operate on a much shorter time scale).

Is not society's shifting fear of that which is artificial just another example of behavioral adapation?

Re:Semantic argument

[theStorminMormon]

On the other hand, like any other contentious issue, it is also possible to over-react to it. More specifically, some people completely fail to acknowledge that the degree of artificiality of a thing can be highly relevant.

No no no. It's not a question of over-reaction. It's a question of whether or not the term "natural" is well-defined. It's not. Therefore it's useless. I don't think you get any additional mileage by substituting "artificial". Please present me with a definition of artificial, then we can start to talk about it. Again: it's not a question of degree. It's a question of coherence.

I'm not saying "there's nothing different from hunter-gather activities" (natural) and playing MMORPGS (artificial). I'm just saying that the differences, and there are many, have NOTHING to do with natural/artificial. You seem to think that when I dismiss the "natural/artificial" distinction I'm equating the two. I can see how you might think that, but it's not what I'm doing. I'm simply saying "this distinction is incoherent". Do you see the difference?

However, we humans have a natural fear of most of those things that are dangerous items in the natural world (or, if not, we're taught to fear it or avoid it). Most humans don't jump off cliffs unless they mean to kill themselves.

Again, you're kind of proving my point. You're using the label "natural" but you're actually referring to an altogether different concept: newness. I'm happy to admit that some things that have been around forever (like cliffs) have possibly been better encoded into our genes than things that are only 1 or 2 generations old (like computer games) but the distinction has NOTHING to do with whether or not these things are "natural". You've made this plain yourself, since clearly the only relevant difference in your example is how long we've lived with these things, not whether or not they are artificial.

I am simply advocating a balanced view. My point is not that artificial items are necessarily bad, but that they can be.

I agree that your POV is more balanced. But you aren't really getting my point. It was never about balance. I'm not trying to say we should or should not be afraid of things that are artificial as opposed to natural. You see me as trying to bring balance to that discussion - I'm not. I'm criticizing the entire dichotomy. It's simply not a useful distinction to make because it's not a coherent one to make.

-stormin

Re:Semantic argument

[FallLine]

No no no. It's not a question of over-reaction. It's a question of whether or not the term "natural" is well-defined. It's not. Therefore it's useless. I don't think you get any additional mileage by substituting "artificial". Please present me with a definition of artificial, then we can start to talk about it. Again: it's not a question of degree. It's a question of coherence

A term does not have to be perfectly well defined to be useful, particularly when there is not a term that is an obviously superior substitute. As for the definition of artificial, dictionary.com defines it as "made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural)". This is a pretty clear definition and the context in which it is used brings greater meaning (like almost ALL language). That some people might abuse the term does not mean it is useless.

There are degrees of artificiality. Very few people would be confused if I said, a 1m-line-of-code computer program that tries to replicate the world, that can only run on a state of the art computer, is a whole lot more artificial than, say, regular-old butter. Both are man-made and are thus artificial, yes, but one is a whole lot further down the chain of human interference.

You're using the label "natural" but you're actually referring to an altogether different concept: newness

Well, no. First, I would assert that things that are highly artificial are by definition new to society (though the reverse is not necessarily true). They are highly correlated in this context. Second, the word "new" itself is not any more precise unless you consider degree. Any item created is bound to be new whether artificial or natural. There will almost always be subtle variations in composition. If I bake a batch of cookies my actual implementation is bound to be slightly off from the recipe I was given and will therefore be "new" -- just not necessarily meaningfully so. If I were to buy a steak, the odds are that the cattle had unique DNA and possibly even appreciable differences from the cattle found generations before (with or without human interference). It is usually only those things that are human-engineered that can be dramatically new or novel in human experience.

In any event, the discussion is the same regardless of semantics, that an elaborate reality constructed by humans just might represent a unique threat to individuals and that it is its degree of removal from the natural world itself that is a significant distinguishing factor from other activities. That does not mean that it is necessarily bad, but that it is not unreasonable not to take assurances that it is just like playing soccer, chess, or any number of other activities.

Uggh

[Krater76]

Giving up a Broadway musical for WoW? Sounds like he made the right call.

There are about a million things I would rather do than sit through a Broadway musical. Even given the choice of a colonoscopy or a Broadway musical I would still choose the colonoscopy.