Is technology bad for us? Baroness Susan Greenfield’s theory seems to suggest that we are all doomed from over-stimulation generated by these machines we appear to be glued to in every facet of our 21st century existence. She reckons the structure of our brains is a changing, due to our addiction to virtual worlds, in much the same way as a meth addict changes their brain function to become a receptacle of dopamine flooding goodness. Is such changes in brain chemistry really that bad? Is it even a moral question to begin with? Should we be asking whether it is good or bad when in truth it is neither?  In the past we weren’t so absorbed or consumed by technology but now that we are embedded into living within a 24 hour/7 days a week – switched on and online society, the threat that our cerebral cortex is turning into some monstrous and base machine, fined tuned to sensory overload – unable to relate in an empathic or meaningful way, is fast approaching. The beast has been let loose and it wants our souls no less. Are we in effect dumbing ourselves down with a constant influx of adrenal fluid and sensation. Turning ourselves into caricature of our reptilian brain ancestry?

A de-evolution of brain mass that is certain to leave us grunting and growling as we lose our ability to communicate with each other in a physical sense, our minds losing the functionality of being able to tap into the social queues that face to face social interaction imbue.  Well that seems to be how Baroness Greenfield would like us to perceive technology. With advent and evolution of social interaction through social networking sites and the such, we will invariably become inept at deciphering the 3D world in which we live. But how different are video games and the internet really? Compared to the introduction of the television sets in living rooms around the globe? Isn’t that where our losing touch and de-evolution began?

Sure gaming and the like is far more sensory and absorbing, filled to the brim with exponential ultra-violence, but I’d suggest it is merely another form of art mimicking reality. It may not provoke the same set of intuitive vision as what say a great novel performs but it does tell a story that could be viewed as a piece of social commentary. Extreme levels of violence depicted in shooters may seem excessive and instil a rather  blasé view of violence but does it not just imitate what we see beamed into our lounge rooms nightly, via the 6 o’clock news? The level of acceptable violence tolerated on prime time TV is none the less extreme. Does having such exposure make us less sensitive and empathetic to blood and gore? Perhaps.

But is this really what concerns Baroness Greenfield – that violence in video games is fuelling a far more sinister blood lust which is becoming insatiable?  That somehow the virtual world will creep into reality and that we will Descend into Depravity  like the new Dying Fetus album depicts so well? Or that we are becoming far more reckless by being exposed to the high risk – risk free environment that gaming bestows? Maybe these things truly are happening, like some kind of metamorphosis in a nightmare lifted out of a Kafka novel. However, is raising awareness going to shift public opinion on the matter? Will the gaming industry curb its multi billion dollar turnover to appease some intellectual? I think not and there appears to be more to Baroness Greenfield’s theory than just a passing concern for the welfare of society.

Isn’t Baroness Greenfield just trying to gain more exposure to herself and thus gain greater chances of securing research funding for her pet project? Moreover isn’t it a little rich for a highly esteemed intellectual like Baroness Greenfield to praise the virtues of intelligentsia while condemning the mindless pass times of layman who will never hope to possess the intellectual prowess which she enjoys. I think she like to express a quote (I don’t know who) that goes something like this “an unexamined life isn’t worth living”. But for the great many people out there, there really isn’t that much to examine. They go to work, come home, sleep. And for the most part their work entails repetitive tasks that leave little to the imagination. Sure they could get all scholarly and look at the nuance that such a life has on the metaphysics of the universe, but really, is there that much more that can be said of mediocrity that hasn’t already been said a trillion times before? So can one blame the poor sap who comes home and joins a virtual world to blast away the enemy and forget the plight that the morrow will bring?

On a final note, there is the suggestion put by Baroness Greenfield that the global financial crisis is somehow to blame on the massive multiplayer  online role playing game, World of Warcraft. Isn’t that just a tad far fetched? Is it reasonable to believe that some hot shit Wall St guru spent too many hours on WOW and somehow the role playing converged into real life, affecting his judgement in  assessing stock and trades. Come on! I’ve heard of video killing the radio star but MMORPG killing the wall street star just doesn’t have the same catchy meme.