The Irony of Virtual Nature

people speak often about preserving nature. i propose that this is intended to mean reconstructing an image of nature. once this meaning is revealed and accepted, then does it remain something of desire? when we loosen the metaphor and reassert the artificiality of the image of nature, then does it lose the appeal that it held in its confusion with nature and it's direction with Nature?

does it at least lose any of the moral privilege given to it over the image of the man made? will the rhetoric of the begrieved, sexy, av sexers ever wane? will the casino/club/mall rise once again into favour of the SL-aristocrat?

preserve the fields of stolen copyright images passed round on bugged perm stolen objects!

*sigh* I'm SO gonna get flamed. Why do I do it?

/me lights kris on fire

fortunately, you're well equipped to come put out the flames too

Interesting point. However, could the preservation of nature in this case refer to land in it's "natural" state ---- befored builds exist on the land? And since the "natural" state of land at the time LL creating it emulates nature, maybe the only true reconstruction exists in it's inception (ie, in rl the "higher power" creates nature, in sl LL creates nature). That being said, obviously LL is the "higher power" of initial creation in sl. Therefore is there truly any "reconstruction" (as opposed to initial construction and inception) within the concpet of preservation in sl?

Were you looking for a serious response at all? Yeah, calling it "nature" is a bit innaccurate.

What it really is:

Less Lag.

Aesthetics.

Seacliff. SL National Parks. The new welcome area.

You know, places that are nice to be in.

The irony of perserving virtual nature wasn't lost on me, either. I think what I personally am looking for is the preservation of the aesthetic of "natural" surroundings.

If you look at the Lost Lake sims right now - they're beautiful. They're virtual, digital representations of trees, lakes, and rolling forests, but they're still pleasing to the eye.

Land brokers, I imagine, might also be interested in the preservation of this aesthetic if only for land value purposes. I might be totally off about this, but my line of thinking would lead me to assume that people would pay more for a plot of land in a beautiful, aesthetically pleasing area than a place surrounded by massive builds of random shapes and sizes with "Look at MEEEEE" signs all over the place.

I understand traffic is a large factor in the land resale value equation as well. However, as the last few auctions in Sawrey attested to, land value cannot be calculated on the amount of "fly-by" traffic it might receive alone.

Keeping the natural aesthetic of the Lost Lakes sims would not only benefit people who want to have those types of surroundings kept intact for work or play, but also the land dealers who could reasonably expect top-dollar for thier plots in such places. Its could be a major selling point to a number of people.


Its not morally superior or better - just different. Variety is the spice of SL and all that.

There's probably many ways to look at it, but I think the basic assumption runs long the lines that even the man-made "nature" (in my case, the Hidden Lakes area) present in second life has some value, mostly aesthitic value that people wish to preserve. I am aware of the irony present in that...I smile a bit to myself every time I bring up the topic of populating the proposed park with "real virtual animals" that have scripted life cycles and can even "breed" (a "male" and a "female" hang out around each other long enough and their offspring eventualy appears between them.)

I don't see it as a moral issue at all, although I know some do, but as a project differing from the curent SL norm in some ways. I have a very real interest in virtual worlds in general and the lengths and heights to which they can be taken. As I said in another thread, I believe things like clubs and malls have their place.

Some of this could also be traced to my RL beliefs...I'm by no means an enviromentalist but I believe in things like responsable use of resources/land and not poluting the air/water/ground since such polution can not be confined by the boundries of one's own land. In SL, I'll try to build with the existing terain instead of against it, having it cleared and flattened only where I need it done to put the building up, even going so far as using the lie of the terain for inspiration. Nor will I go overboard on textures, light objects, particles, active scripts, etc.

This is a very interesting question, Jauani. I think that at the root of people's complaints there may be more of a desire to see some continuity within a certain area. New sims with their pretty trees and planned landscaping have a unified and well-thought-out feel. Once the land is sold, each new owner transfers his/her SL dream onto that land, whether it's to have a SL "garden" or "house" or "poorly-textured club with spinning lights." But most individual plots in a sim don't really fit together or have that aesthetic flow that the original landscaping did.

Even in real (not virtual) nature, most people like a controlled environment. We plant water-sucking grass in our lawns that must be mowed, we plant roses and other plants/flowers that must be meticulously trimmed and sprayed with pesticides to remain healthy and "pretty." Most "nature" that we are exposed to isn't really "natural." But it's controlled and managed, in line with humans' nature to control things to our own liking. (We spent about $1,000 this past summer re-doing our front yard; it would have been much cheaper and easier to let it be natural. I can't wait until our kids grow up and we can sell this house and move to a condo where I don't have to maintain a yard!)


I prefer city living in real life, so I rather like builds and more "urbanized" settings in SL. However, I think there is a great difference between something in SL that is really well-built and well-textured and many of the quickly textured house- or club-cubes that exist now in SL. That's the greatest thing and the worst thing about SL all in one: we can all build what we want, no matter our experience or skill level, but amateur developers sometimes means less than high quality work.

my version of the question is "why do ll go to so much trouble to create beautiful virtual landscapes and limit the landowners' terraforming ability in the first place? especially in a telehub sim.

it IS ironic that we scream for non-terraformable, natural beauty so that they go to great pains to produce it; then we flatten it all as best we can, build massive structures all over it, and complain when a linden tree blows over the property line.

i have no moral compunction about it all either. i just enjoy playing with the ground frame and building nice looking plants. i've only just discovered a new alpha technique that i'm very excited about and i'm rambling again aren't i.

We have a charter at Club Fame to promote aesthetics and build in harmony with nature. This presupposes a rough consensus that it is better to leave the mountain top and bay of our beautiful land in Refugio rather than scrape it all down and pave it over. It seems understood. But more or less embellishment are issues that could be argued.

I'm well aware of all the ironies and complexities of a statement like "harmony with nature" in a virtual world. Just what is nature in a virtual world? Why should Eric Linden's notion of where a snow pine be placed be blessed and sanctified as "nature"? Could I move Eric Linden's snow pine and still "build in harmony with nature"? Is the "nature" that both of us have in our mind's eye the same, or different, depending on our cultures and homelands?

Why did the Lindens put scruffy ground in between the beautiful-looking stone of our mountain and the snow of the hillside? Maybe it was supposed to look "more natural" and "more real" like a tree line? If we put down snow-textured prims to cover this up, have we succumbed to a violation of "nature" or just a violation of that particular Linden who was making that particular land parcel?

And why have trees and hills and water, anyway? That's just planet earth's nature. Shouldn't we think of volcanic lava flows and moonscapes and stalagmite caverns on Jupiter or whatever? This is supposed to be an open-ended second life, and yet it is filled with a nature that is as bland and predictable as the already-logged reforested and rounded hills outside of any suburban town on the East Coast of the US. Even the land called "tropical" doesn't have sand or palm trees, like TSO (unless I've missed something).

I guess what we mean by "nature" is the pleasing natural-looking environment before it is scraped and tamped down to build a mall or an ugly house. But then, maybe that is the "nature" that someone else prefers?

"You can't go against nature/Going against nature/is part of nature, too." (Love and Rockets)

Good points, ones I forgot to bring up. I do want to see more large-scale theme areas.

Also, if Hidden Lakes National Park comes to be, it too will be "managed" in order to enchance what's already there and attract people to the area.

FZZZZLE CRACKLE SNAP *brain fried*