Here’s a headline, from the Ecopreneurist, that caught my attention: “Virtual Reality: Good for the Environment.” First of all, it was actually a surprise to me that the term “virtual reality” is still being used. I recall when the term gained prominence in the early 1990s, with the gloves and the helmet and all the accoutrements. (A little research also turned up the surprising fact that the term itself was coined in 1938 by French playwright, poet, actor, and director Antonin Artaud and that the actual idea dates as far back as the mid-19th century.) Be all that as it may, what does virtual reality have to do with the environment?

it may not be long before you can spend time interacting with your social networking contacts in an actual virtual reality environment. When it seems like you are sitting in the same room with your friends, you won’t have to travel to see them in person as much. This can offset some of the fossil fuel use in the world, and reduce the impact on the environment.

Careful now. If I walk over to a friend’s house or downtown to hang out, as I am wont to do, I am using no fossil fuels. On the other hand, sitting in front of a computer—or whatever the VR interface is going to be—uses electricity to power the computer, the servers on which the VR site is located, and all the computers and other devices of the participants. The post also speculates that someday we will be able to eliminate the need to visit foreign places simply by availing ourselves of virtual reality simulations of those places. (We can probably someday even go one better and take a Philip K. Dick approach and simply implant the memories of having been someplace. Kind of like virtual virtual reality.) Then there are games:

When people start to engage in virtual reality games, they will spend less time actually getting out and about. While this may completely change the dynamic of society, it will definitely have a positive impact on the environment.

Again, careful what we wish for. I think the last thing that would help the environment is to discourage people from actually being out in the environment. The “environment” isn’t some abstract thing disconnected from us. We are part of the environment. The only way we can appreciate the environment and want to protect it is to be out and revel in it, to appreciate it, not avoid it. It’s like people buying really nice, expensive furniture and then covering it with plastic and preventing anyone from sitting on it. What’s the point? If we never get outside, if we are locked inside staring at computers all the time (and please kill me before that becomes reality), how can we have any kind of relationship with nature? I will admit, being a city boy, I am fond of the Woody Allen quote “I am two with nature,” but nothing reinvigorates my respect for nature and the environment than a trip to the Adirondacks, or to a National Park—or to be out in nature in some fashion. Yes, just by virtue of the fact that I have to drive there I am having some negative impact, but the idea is to find ways of minimizing that impact. That’s where we should be concentrating our efforts, not turning into couch potatoes and agoraphobes. I’m all for technology (though I really dislike video games) and, yes, there are some cases in which it can help reduce our environmental impact—having a meeting via Skype, rather than driving or flying, for example—and, yes, some social media applications can have a net positive effect, even when you account for the environmental impacts of electronic media. But I think we do a great disservice both to ourselves and to the environment when we think that in order to protect it we have to completely avoid it.