Digital World III

I have some more additions to my discussion of or search for the value of our digital world. Since I have started posting about this people have been coming up to me to talk about the subject, and I have been noticing things that are connected to it more, so it is likely that most of the things that I have heard or discussed concerning this topic would not have come out if I hadn't started writing about it. Which doesn't really matter, but it's interesting to think about.

Anyway, one of the things someone said to me was "it doesn't really matter, because it isn't going to last". Meaning that we still have the pyramids of the ancient Egyptians, and the Rosetta stone, and the ruins of Greek and Roman temples, and Beowulf, and that whatever we are producing online does not really count, because it will be lost anyway. It's just data, it isn't anything real you can touch or that can survive. So the things of our society that will last are the buildings and the images and the art we produce, probably, and most of the everyday items and websites and data that we use will be lost. I think this is a difficult one. Firstly, we now measure societies by what they have left behind, but that clearly isn't all they ever were, for everything that we still have hundreds or thousands of things were lost. So if from our time only Dan Brown's novels and some Bollywood movies survive, future generations will think that we were all constantly breaking out in song and dance, wearing colourful clothing, while everyone was suppressed by the Catholic church and murders happened everywhere, or something, and they would probably generate some sort of society or world-view around this that has nothing to do with what our society is really about (although I honestly have no idea what "our society is really about", but that goes for most societies, I'd say). So whatever it is that "will last" will never be the full picture, it will always be a selection, and probably a random selection. Some people are creating beautiful art on their computers, which is only ever seen digitally, while some of the art that is produced "in the real world" will survive but will not represent any craft or anything about our time (I'm sticking to art here because it is one of those things you think will survive, although we can never be sure). Is the one more real than the other? Has one more "right" to survive than the other, because it is more "real"? Also, things are getting more and more digitalised (downloading your music instead of buying a cd, or e-books), so they then won't "last" as "real" things, but I am not sure whether that makes them less real.
As you can see, I'm struggling with this one, because it touches upon what is "real", but also upon what will last, and those are two different things, I think. Also, it has to do with the representation and value of things, which is not something you can objectively assign. Difficult subject.

So there's that, and there's also the fact that digital things probably will last, because society is becoming more computerised with every day, and it won't be long before we will all be walking around with a chip in our arms or electronics in our brains to control our computer or connect to the Internet. This idea was brought forth by a geneticist who was giving an introduction to a book we are going to translate for a course (I have decided I won't spend too much time talking about my studies on this blog, so if you want to know more about this you'll have to ask me personally), and he was saying how he couldn't wait until he would have a brain implant that would let him connect to the Internet so that he didn't need his phone or his tablet or whatever external machinery anymore. He was dreaming of the day that he could just project images into his brain and didn't need his eyes anymore, so he could just close his eyes and watch a movie inside his head while cuddling up with his wife in bed. Now I think most of us in the class were genuinely appalled by this idea, but he really loved it. So in this vision of the future, we are all becoming part-robots, living in our own brains without using most of our external senses, but at the same time being connected to everyone else via the Internet (or whatever system will be in place by then). So in this scenario (and I don't know how realistic it is, to be honest, but let's stick to it), it doesn't matter anymore whether something is real or digital, because the digital things will all be inside our minds anyway, so they will be just as "real" as a table you can actually see or feel. Perhaps they would be even more real, because that table is something you don't experience anymore, because you live inside your head all the time.
To me, this is a really scary idea, not only because it makes me think of The Matrix-like situations in which computers can just take over, but also because to me, being human means interacting with other humans in a society that has some sort of cultural framework, which I do not see happening when we are all living inside our heads. This may be an out-dated idea of what it means to function as a human being, and the whole instant-gratification thing clearly appeals to some people, but to me it only brings to mind those fat floating people in Wall-E, and I don't want to end up like that. But on the other hand, it's not something you can stop. If "everyone is doing it", and you won't be able to get a job or insurance or even an identity anymore without having a brain implant, you won't be able to function in society anymore anyway. The only upside I can see to this is the more we start living in our own worlds, the less likely we will be to start conflicts or wars, because you literally wouldn't have to see what other people are doing.

Now I don't know how realistic the whole brain implant image is, and I am sure that (again) it will at first only influence the 10% in the west that have the money and connections and power, but it is something to keep in mind. If everything is going digital, even us, then what is "real"? What will "last" for future generations? Does it even matter anymore? Difficult questions.
I hope this will spark off some new discussions about the subject, because I feel like there is still a lot I haven't covered, but I also think I am getting a better overview and more to the point, if there even is a point.