Intangible problem: Parents afraid of children playing outside without supervision, going to the park by themselves, meeting strangers, crossing the street by themselves, and all the other bad things that could happen when you let your precious child out of your sight.
Tangible solution: With the Wii you can play sports, learn an instrument, play with friends (real ones or made up ones), dance, be a hero, drive, go to a carnival, bake a cake, build a bear, answer trivia, and do so many other things in front of your TV.
Of course I don't think that this is the best solution, but it is interesting the way video game meets reality in a new way where movement is largely accounted for, different controllers are used to not let us forget the history of whatever you're playing, and it is safe.
1 comment:
Interesting, Monica. I think you are on to something important: for sure, people put often expose themselves to greater danger in an effort to reduce risk. This is beautifully illustrated in your example of more people dying because they were afraid to fly after 9-11 and chose to drive to their destinations instead. Of course, one could make the same argument about telling kids not to play outside because they might get injured or kidnapped, but rather to stay indoors and use Wii to get exercise. There are many ways that this could backfire. Is it really feasible for people to make smart choices and minimize their risks, given all of the unforseen ways that unintended consequences can occur? After all, the Wii Remote could go flying out of your hand and injure someone. How do we measure and compare risks? What is a reasonable level of precaution, and what is just silly or overly cautious? These are very important questions right now, and I think this could be the beginning of a very interesting thesis exploration, so I strongly encourage you to continue in this direction. You may want to look at an essay by Bill Joy called, "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html).
He discusses (pre 9-11) some of his concerns about how technological development could lead to very dangerous situations. he is clearly not an alarmist, and much of what he says is probably correct. So, it is probably smart to be afraid, or at least to be aware of the real dangers that are out there. At the same time, people have to make sure that the alternatives they choose to avoid what they believe are high-risk situations do not produce much more serious hazards.
steven
Post a Comment