12 ms·

Sorry, I said that backwards. Economic growth is necessary (at least in the capitalist system we are in). We need things to succeed to deliver economic growth.

Sorry, I said that backwards. Economic growth is necessary (at least in the capitalist system we are in). We need things to succeed to deliver economic growth. At a certain point large sacrifices will be made to ensure the success of a new industry that promises economic growth. I don't think VR is at this point yet, but it might be soon. Cars in the US and the destruction of passenger trains is a good past example. Cars gave consumers more freedom but at a much greater price and thus role in economic growth. We made great investments into highway systems to subsidize the automobile industry. This came at the expense of passenger trains (among other things) which was a direct competitor to the personal car, but operated more efficiently. Tying back to the original comment, if there is a way to monetize walking that can only be done in VR, incentives will flow towards promoting that VR system to succeed. Those incentives will necessarily undermine the free alternative of actually walking. This is all done in the name of economic growth.

chresko 4y ago
I think the logic here is backwards. Cars didn't become more popular (measured by usage per person) than trains because of the vast infrastructure that was built. Cars became more popular because they were more appealing and useful than trains (for the reason you mentioned - sense of freedom). Cars CREATED the industries you mentioned (highways, gas stations, dealerships, car insurance, etc) because consumers wanted Cars. The demand for Cars increased, new industries were created from the demand, and the combination of all of the above moved the auto industry forward, displacing trains. This isn't a sacrifice, it's the better product winning. VR will succeed when VR is 'better' than the current non-VR options. People will use VR more, demand will increase, and current or new businesses will start building for VR. Lowering (or raising) the price of a VR headset, releasing new versions of low adoption headsets, or asserting that VR is the future, isn't going to increase demand. Usefulness increases demand.

chresko 4y ago

I think the logic here is backwards. Cars didn't become more popular (measured by usage per person) than trains because of the vast infrastructure that was built. Cars became more popular because they were more appealing and useful than trains (for the reason you mentioned - sense of freedom). Cars CREATED the industries you mentioned (highways, gas stations, dealerships, car insurance, etc) because consumers wanted Cars. The demand for Cars increased, new industries were created from the demand, and the combination of all of the above moved the auto industry forward, displacing trains. This isn't a sacrifice, it's the better product winning. VR will succeed when VR is 'better' than the current non-VR options. People will use VR more, demand will increase, and current or new businesses will start building for VR. Lowering (or raising) the price of a VR headset, releasing new versions of low adoption headsets, or asserting that VR is the future, isn't going to increase demand. Usefulness increases demand.