Once upon a time, in the ancient kingdom of Lydia, there lived a shepherd named Gigus. Gig found a magic ring that could make him invisible. So he entered the royal palace unnoticed, seduced the queen, killed the king and proclaimed himself ruler. If you were to find such a ring or similar thing that gave you immense power, Socrates asked, would it be wise to use it to get everything you want?
Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement that he will soon open the doors of his magnificent digital metaverse to humanity has made Socrates' answer relevant again: people must give up too much power and especially things that allow them to fulfill too many of their desires.
Was Socrates right? Would a sane person really refuse such a ring? And why would you do that?
Socrates' disciples did not think so. Plato tells us that they claimed that practically everyone would succumb to temptation, as did Gigus himself. Is it because Gig's ring wasn't powerful enough, and therefore not scary enough, for us to recoil from such a choice? Would a thing much more powerful than a ring that makes people invisible make us hold back, as Socrates claimed? If so, what should such a thing be capable of doing?
The ring allowed Gigo to physically overcome his rivals and thus remove some of the obstacles that stood in the way of his desires. The ring helped him kill the king's guards, but he couldn't remove it sve obstacles. What if there was a device, let's call it the Freedom Machine, that removes just about every obstacle on the way to anything we want? What would life be like without any restrictions once such a Freedom Machine is set in motion?
We could fly like birds, travel to other galaxies, perform feats in universes created by talented video game designers. But that would not be enough. One of the most difficult constraints is imposed on us by time: time forces us to leave the book we are reading if we want to swim in the pool or go to the theater. Hence, to truly abolish all limitations, our Freedom Machine would have to allow for an infinitely large number of parallel experiences. Even then, we would be left with one more, final and perhaps greatest limitation: other people.
If Jill wants to take Jack for a walk in the mountains, while Jack wants to go for a romantic walk by the sea, Jack and Jill set limits for each other. To free them from all restraints, the Freedom Machine would have to allow Jill to go up the mountain with Jack who wants the same, while Jack would get his own version of Jill who is content to walk by the sea. We would inhabit the same virtual world, but the experience of our interactions would be completely different. It would be not only a universe of bliss but also a multiverse of infinite, simultaneous and overlapping pleasures. In other words, we would be freed not only from poverty, but also from everything others do to us, everything they expect and want from us. With the removal of all obstacles, the resolution of all dilemmas and the abolition of all compromises, endless satisfaction would be within our reach.
I'm not surprised that Zuckerberg's mouth is watering at the thought of such a machine. That would be the final version of the "metaverse" into which he plans to introduce more than two billion Facebook residents. I can imagine how for a moment he allows us to experience the pleasures of that cornucopia for free, only to then, when we want more, charge us for everything. Every nanosecond of immersion in that multiverse would produce enormous multiple pleasures - for which we would pay again and again. Soon, the capitalization of Meta, the company that now owns Facebook, would exceed the capitalization of all other corporations combined.
The fact that our technologies are still very far from the Freedom Machine is irrelevant in this case, and neither is the fact that Gig's ring existed only in myth. Socrates' question posed by two science fiction devices, one ancient and one modern, does not lose its relevance because of this: How wise is it to use unlimited power over others and over nature to satisfy our desires?
CEOs of large technology companies and defenders of the free market don't think about it: What's wrong with satisfaction? Why would anyone resist parallel experiences that satisfy our deepest desires? And why wouldn't Zuckerberg make a nice profit from people willing to pay for it?
Socrates' answer is as valid today as it was 2.500 years ago: the price we pay for using limitless power is a disease of the soul—that is, a radical loss of happiness. Whether you're a user who wants complete control over your own senses within a machine metaverse or a Zuckerberg who wants to own a digital empire that will include billions of people, you're guaranteed unhappiness. The good life involves the ability to control the desire to acquire power, as well as the understanding that in the hands of contradictory creatures such as humans, power is a dangerous double-edged sword.
Unmeasured power is counterproductive, even destructive. Human beings need interaction with other human minds which we can not manage, even if we endlessly want to. When others act contrary to our wishes, we may feel disappointment, anger or sadness. But when we gain complete control over others, their acceptance no longer gives us any pleasure, and their approval adds nothing to our idea of self-worth.
It is not easy to learn that the control we have over others is always an illusion, especially if we are willing to sacrifice almost everything and pay any price to gain such control. If we want to prevent others from controlling us - Zuckerberg, for example - this is a lesson we must learn.
Socrates tried to warn us about the dangers of succumbing to the temptation of the magic ring by showing the misfortune of Gigos. Today, in the age of techno-feudalism, as new metaverses are upon us, his warning is more relevant than ever. Just like in ancient Athens, the task is to provide power demos and at the same time not succumbing to the temptation of power.
(Project Syndicate; Peščanik.net; translation: Đ. Tomić)
Bonus video:
