hether from Mark Zuckerberg, Apple, or others — there are sweeping ambitions to blur the boundaries between our physical and digital lives. These ambitions are often framed in futuristic or abstract terms — products in development, being tested in research labs, designed for a not-too-distant future. But this framing does not reflect reality. We are already inside a metaverse, one that has crept into our lives, injected itself behind our retinas with needles so fine that we barely felt each puncture. Every day, we drift a little closer to a complete simulation. Our interests and interactions have become hyperreal, existing in a world that slowly overlays the one we can touch and experience with our physical senses.

The metaverse is already here. You are already inside it.

Simulacra & Simulation

These are bold claims. To understand them concretely, we can begin with some literature. Simulacra and Simulation is a book published in 1981 by Jean Baudrillard. The book and its ideas served as the philosophical backbone of the Matrix film series — but we will return to that shortly. Simulacra and Simulation examines the nature of reality in an increasingly commercialized and media-saturated world. Specifically, Baudrillard explores how media images create a new reality and systematically displace the established world we already inhabit. The book can be complex and disorienting, so Baudrillard simplifies much of his theory by drawing on an ancient parable. If we understand this thought experiment — and extend it a little — we can begin to grasp our current situation. And believe me when I say it is, in fact, a difficult one.

Imagine there is a great empire, and a mad cartographer creates a map of it — a topographical map at a scale of 1:1. On the map, mountains a thousand metres high stand a thousand metres tall; rivers a hundred metres wide stretch a hundred metres across. The cartographer also decides that the landscape on the map must change alongside the real landscape of the empire. If a cliff collapses, the same cliff must collapse on the map. At this point, the map becomes indistinguishable from the terrain of the empire itself. But the map is so vast that it can only be laid atop the empire itself. We must acknowledge that this is physically impossible, of course — but this parable exists in the metaphorical, not the physical, sense. And so the cartographer lays his enormous, perfect map over the empire, and it now essentially replaces it. Since the map cannot be told apart from the empire, this seems acceptable — what difference does it make?

But then our mad cartographer has an idea. He can actually make the map better than the empire it depicts. The trees can be greener, the mountains taller, the flowers can bloom every day rather than once a year. And so he does exactly that. Now the cartographer possesses a map that, in many respects, surpasses the reality it was meant to represent. He becomes very famous for the beauty of the world he has created. He grows very wealthy, very greedy, and develops an extravagant lifestyle that he must maintain. He cannot allow people to look beneath the map — they must live upon it and revel in the splendour of his perfect creation.

This is precisely what is happening. Not only in this parable, but in our reality.

Meanwhile, the empire itself begins to decay. It is neglected by those in power, because the map has replaced it as a living space, as a world. The empire eventually crumbles from disuse and lack of maintenance, while the map remains above it — larger than the empire ever was. What, then, is the true empire? Is it the world, or is it the map? What happens when society — present or future — needs a map of its new realm? It will only produce a map of a map. When future generations describe the empire after the map has disintegrated, will they picture the world — or will they picture the map?

Does it matter? Does it transform the original map into something real? And what becomes of the empire?

This is an expanded version of the story Baudrillard uses in his work. For Baudrillard, the map was a simulation — but once it took the place of the empire, it became a simulacrum: a copy that no longer has an original. Today, we can say that technology is that map of our empire. It offers products, communities, social circles. It displaces crowds. It has trends, it has footage of events that take place in real life. It has shops, banks, games, and sport. Today, the internet can even produce works of art, literature, and music. Like the mad cartographer's map, the internet presents things more impressively than they exist — everything is simpler, more beautiful, more perfect. And we must also consider that the internet is no longer merely a network we access through physical entry points and then leave behind. It is something that permeates nearly everything we do.

The map has been laid, in earnest, over the empire.

Consider the phenomenon of fake news. This is the most visible point at which our map obscures reality. Stories are invented online with no grounding in the real world, designed to soothe the sensitivities of an audience, and stamped with the message that the real, actual version of events is somehow wrong. In the most serious cases, people are elected, laws are passed, and changes are made on the basis of things that have only the flimsiest foothold in reality.

Social media influencers and celebrities are another example of this blurring. FaceTune-edited photographs, glamorous and fabricated portrayals of life, and staged candid photoshoots obscure the reality of existence. But these influencers need not look the way they actually look — their entire existence plays out on screens, in the digital world. Perhaps a thousandth of a percent of their audience will ever have a real, face-to-face interaction with them. And so the digital representation of these influencers and their lives becomes real. These images have tangible consequences. They alter our expectations of life. They reshape our sense of reality itself.

AI generates images that are not real, yet we are increasingly unable to distinguish between the actual and the artificial. Indeed, progress for the people building these algorithms is measured by the public's growing inability to tell AI-generated images apart from reality. These images undermine the real and push our actual world toward inadequacy and irrelevance. Why bother with reality at all?

Virtual reality devices like the Apple Vision Pro promise to transcend distance, time, and geography — in an instant, you can be transported to remote corners of the world. If the technocrats had their way, everyone would use these devices, and they would have these devices present virtual space as entirely indistinguishable from physical space. People would abandon the real world and declare geography and physical space irrelevant in favour of their virtual reality. These devices are not yet ubiquitous, so this remains somewhat hypothetical. But more concretely and immediately, the proliferation of these devices, applications, and technologies harms our planet in very real ways — even as the companies behind them broadcast absurd green messaging every time they communicate about their products. When Apple announces it has cut its carbon emissions by fifty percent, we should not be fooled. Even if that figure is accurate and sincere, fifty percent still remains — with enormous damage to our planet. And that says nothing of the countless other ways Apple and its competitors exploit and degrade our environment. These companies are actively participating in the destruction of our planet while lying to us and simultaneously constructing their false reality. And think back to our parable: our cartographers — the CEOs and politicians — are letting the empire fall to ruin so they can build their map.

All of these pieces form a whole. The more ambitious the tech oligarchs become, the more the boundary between our empire and our map dissolves. Technology is only optional until it is not. We can no longer log off from the internet. We are shaped by the digital landscape in every waking moment — and while we sleep. Consider the last time you left the house without your phone. Consider the last time you actually switched it off for any meaningful length of time — longer than a restart. We live in a world that is not real enough to be true, yet too tangible to be purely digital. It is neither real nor unreal. What we have is a new, third version of space: the hyperreal.

This is our metaverse. It has already been designed, and the technocrats are our devoted cartographers. We did not ask for this metaverse. We did not want it. Which is why it was sold to us under the guise of infinite consumer features. We are meant to believe that our metaverse enriches our lives, satisfies our needs, and will continue to do so. In truth, it supplies us with heroin and diamonds — gratifying our most superficial desires. We impress our peers and inflate an abstract form of social prestige. We chase material possessions that bring little lasting satisfaction. Think of the last time you bought a new version of something — there is that rush of fulfilment that fades, and we reach again for the same high. What remains is a persistent sense of dissatisfaction, one that can only be resolved by consuming more.

The metaverse ensures we don't merely dip our toes in the water. It compels us to wade deeper, like a man who walks into the sea and keeps walking. The true function of our metaverse is to perpetuate itself. It pumps capital into the pockets of a few, secures control and power, and simultaneously draws the masses into a looping structure. The more we engage with our metaverse, the more it demands of us. We work to buy more, and — strangely — we work to accumulate days off. In doing so, we continually sacrifice resources and time that could be spent contemplating life outside this increasingly unreal landscape.

Jean Baudrillard's ideas served as the loose philosophical foundation for the Matrix film series, in which the protagonists discover that all of reality is a digital simulation. The protagonist Neo can enter the Matrix by plugging a large cable into the back of his neck. Our Matrix is not so antiquated and clumsy as the one depicted in that film. Ours requires neither a cable nor our body. Ours travels through the air as radio frequencies. It lives in our relationships, in our social dynamics, in our monotonous daily routines. It is in every tangible and intangible molecule of our lives.

The Society of the Spectacle

In 1967, the French philosopher Guy Debord wrote The Society of the Spectacle. The book is composed of a series of short passages engaging with consumerism, media, and in particular the way authentic life is replaced by representations of reality. Debord writes: "The spectacle is not a collection of images; it is a social relation between people that is mediated by images."

Today, by "images" we can understand any combination of consumption-oriented media — advertising, films, videos, magazines, newspapers, digital content like the text you are reading now, and so on. The spectacle is an amorphous thing, difficult but not impossible to define. It is the capital-driven, consumer-oriented landscape of our lives. It is motivated by economic growth. It is the show put on for us by moneyed interests, and the way that show transforms our relationships to one another and to life itself. The spectacle is both the rhetoric that produces media and the media that produces rhetoric.

In small doses, the spectacle is tolerable. Technology can help us. Markets, too, can be beneficial in many respects. Some spectacle can offer consumers security, choice, opportunity, even genuine agency over their lives. The problem arises when the spectacle no longer exists alongside our world but swallows it whole. Debord observed that lived experience in the real world was being replaced by the mere observation of spectacle. We spend our days working so we can buy this or that new thing — a house, a car — that the spectacle has told us we need. Conversations increasingly revolve around private objects and software. Social media platforms like WhatsApp and Instagram become an integral component of every hobby. Through the spectacle, our lives are converted into a sequence of transactions with commercial goods and profit-driven companies, whose only feedback is that we must engage still more. Every action we take now comes accompanied by a residue that wants to attach itself to us and insert itself as an intermediary between us and reality.

Much like Jean Baudrillard's map, this spectacle helps to construct a false world. Consider the sport of baseball. It began as a game — in fact, baseball players were once not permitted to be paid. But over time, the spectacle enveloped the sport. Gradually, every surface of a baseball stadium was covered in advertising designed to influence the viewer in one way or another. Every statistic shown during a television broadcast is now "presented by" some company. The uniforms are adorned with irrelevant corporate logos. Baseball stadiums themselves are no longer named after founders or cities but after corporations competing for your attention.

In recent years, stranger changes still have been made. Baseball — a slow, quiet, unhurried game — was losing popularity with modern audiences, which meant lower revenues for advertisers and stakeholders. Without their support, the sport would have slowly died and vanished from our world, because it could not satisfy the spectacle. And so those stakeholders simply changed baseball. They introduced a series of rules to increase the pace of play and shorten the duration of a game. Once the spectacle had infected the sport, it altered baseball at its very core.

So it is with our world. Just as with baseball, and just as the mad cartographer changed his map, the spectacle changes what it means to be human. It replaces lived reality with the contemplation of, and engagement with, the spectacle itself. Every decision we make — from the media we consume, to the clothes we wear, to the events we attend — becomes fuel for the spectacle. The spectacle rejects the depiction of reality. As Debord observes, what the spectacle shows is important, and what is important is what the spectacle shows. Appearance is the goal, not being.

Images — whether advertisements, internet content, or films — shape our decisions, beliefs, and ideals, regardless of whether those images have any basis in reality. News cycles filter out parts of the world and allow others in, depending on what generates attention and advertising revenue. We are told to buy this or that because it will make us happy. Our social lives are saturated with social networks and a relentless torrent of media. The spectacle steers our behaviour. Our lives and minds become malleable clay. Perhaps it does not happen abruptly or quickly — but it accumulates like dark clouds gathering before rain, before the rain actually makes us wet. For most people in society, the logical thing to do is simply go back inside before it rains — before they get wet, before their illusions dissolve in the cold drop of reality.

It recalls Plato's famous Allegory of the Cave: we are held as prisoners from childhood, staring at shadows moving across a wall, cast by a great fire burning behind us. We hear echoes — all of it produced by puppeteers concealed behind a wall. We would see the shadow of a chair and call it a chair; hear the sound of a bird and associate it with a bird. Yet these would be mere illusions. One might be freed and forced to turn toward the source, but the sheer brightness of the fire would cause pain. The prisoner would long to return to the comfortable ignorance of the shadows. Yet if one were to press further — even against their own will — past the brightness of the fire and out into the sunlight, the eyes would eventually adjust to the sight of actual objects in the real world. But attempting to return and free the other prisoners, the eyes would struggle to readjust to the darkness of the cave. That confused blindness would be read by the others as a sign not to follow the same path. The world outside the cave would be the world of Forms — the perfect, abstract world that holds all knowledge in its purest incarnation. The shadows would represent the limited world of the senses.

Here, too, a little of this may be entirely acceptable. Markets have satisfied our basic needs in the Western world — food, shelter, and water are readily accessible for most people. And does it really matter whether those people then live inside Plato's cave, inside hyperreality, or in actual life? For most people, it does not. But the same cannot be said of the spectacle. And that, in fact, is precisely the point: the spectacle cannot stop. It is not satisfied with merely covering the cave, or the hyperreal, or reality itself. It demands infinite growth. And so it has manufactured new desires and new ambitions for the consumer. It has constructed for us a metaverse of values. It presses us to need a faster car, a larger house — and so we must go on participating. Life itself, with all its beauty, emotion, and seasons, is no longer enough. We must now aspire to something higher.

This naturally leads to alienation. Debord observes: "The more his life is now his product, the more he is separated from his life." We are strangers in our own world, estranged from what it means to exist as a human being. We are strangers to one another. We cannot be present with or for our fellow human beings — we must be present with and for the spectacle. Achievements are measured less and less by relationships, by service, by the regard of others. The spectacle hands out no prizes for the happiest person or the closest friendships. Instead, success today is synonymous with diplomas, possessions, and senior positions in large organisations.

When we gather all these circumstances and their consequences, we arrive, ultimately, at our metaverse. We do not live in reality, but in a kind of simulation of it. For the modern person, it is essentially inconceivable to imagine a life not connected to this simulation. How else are we to spend our days? Staring at the sky? Sitting and doing nothing? That is unthinkable. And with that, we have arrived at a difficult truth: this simulation, and everything that comes with it, is reality.

The map has become the empire.

Artificial Freedoms

This vortex of simulacra, hyperreality, and spectacle together forms our modern metaverse. But why do we accept it as such? It is easy enough to claim that all of this is nonsense, that all of it is unhealthy. And yet our metaverse works. Why?

We should not ignore the mechanical realities. It is engineered to function. Billions of dollars and brilliant minds are poured into this new metaverse to ensure it exploits our most intense psychological impulses. But considered more abstractly, our metaverse offers us obvious advantages.

In the American South, greyhound racing has long been a spectator sport and a vehicle for gambling. In these races, an artificial lure is pulled at high speed around a track, and the dogs — driven by instinct and training — chase it as fast as they can. A close friend of a colleague once adopted a greyhound as a pet, a retired racing dog. When they took the dog in, they were told that greyhounds in captivity on the tracks are not mistreated — quite the opposite. For a greyhound to run well, it must be happy. I cannot verify whether that is true, but I ask the reader to accept it as a hypothesis.

With that in mind, greyhound racing becomes not more humane, but more cruel. These dogs are soothed, placated, and encouraged by the false belief that one day they might actually catch the lure. They are kept blissfully ignorant all along, never permitted to run free — distracted from the very desire for freedom by the mere idea of it.

Our simulation turns us all into these racing greyhounds, soothed by material comforts so that we will keep running faster and chasing our lures. We are given a kind of freedom. We are free to live our lives however we choose — according to the metaverse, as represented by the vast array of options the market presents us with. But this is a false freedom.

It is false in the most mundane ways. We can choose from a hundred different cereals, but they all belong to three companies: Nestlé, General Mills, and PepsiCo. We can wear whatever we like, but those choices are constrained by our economic means. And beyond that, exercising any of these choices requires continuous engagement with the spectacle. We receive prizes for our participation — but we must participate to earn those prizes, ignoring all the while the concept of running truly free.

This freedom is also false in a more fundamental sense. At its core, the logic is simple: contribute to the simulation, or perish. For me, it is straightforward enough to sit at my computer, carry on my independent work online, and even step outside this metaverse as best I can from time to time. But not everyone has that choice. For my mother, who raised three children, or a man working two jobs to pay his rent, philosophising about the simulation is a luxury they cannot afford. It is simply not an option. What kind of freedom is that — a freedom that prescribes your every move?

Trees and Other Things

We return, finally, to Jean Baudrillard. He identifies four stages through which something progresses from the real to the simulacrum. Consider the image of a tree. This is the first stage. It is simple reality. We have an object — the image — that represents something that actually exists: the tree.

But then we begin to tamper with it. We load the image into Photoshop and make some colour corrections. This is essentially what professional photography does. The images are enhanced, but everyone knows it. The deception is minimal. This is Baudrillard's second stage.

Then we decide that our image, even enhanced, is not good enough. So we download a stunning photograph of a tree from the internet and tell our friends that we took it ourselves — that it is a picture from a hike we went on. This is the third stage. The image is real, and it depicts something real, but it is presented in a dishonest way that distances it from reality.

Finally, the last stage brings us to the complete simulacrum. We generate an AI image of a tree and present it to our friends. At this point, we are presenting something fabricated and actively concealing reality — convincing our friends that this AI-generated image of a tree is, in fact, genuine. We have produced something that surpasses the real: a simulacrum, the hyperreal, as Baudrillard terms it.

I would hesitate to map this framework entirely onto our present moment, but we can certainly recognise how media, technology, and the internet transform our reality through a similar sequence of stages.

Technology is not bad. The internet is not inherently harmful. The digital world has helped humanity in countless ways. We can find like-minded people — even romantic partners. We can discover cultural achievements and bodies of knowledge. We can find help when we need it, almost whenever we need it. Medical technology has saved hundreds of millions of lives. This is a vital point, and it is not my intention to condemn all technology.

The problem arises when this hyperreal metaverse eclipses reality. The problem arises when we fail to recognise that the map is not the empire — when the empire is allowed to decay in favour of the map. I am aware that I use the internet more than most people, but in the ten years I have been online, the general trajectory has continued in one direction: more internet, for everyone, at all times. We are accelerating, not slowing down. I have the feeling that the point of diminishing returns is drawing closer every day — if we have not already reached it.

My stories and reflections, I dare to say, are both timely and forward-looking. The greatest and most insidious trap our metaverse sets for us is deception. This metaverse proclaims that beauty and happiness reside within its code, within its folds — and conceals the real world beneath its paper-thin façade. But beauty, in truth, is everywhere. It is in the blades of grass and the grains of sand. It is in the late nights spent with our closest friends. It is in the embrace of someone we love.

We should use and enjoy technology. But we should not allow it to consume us so entirely. We should not believe in the metaverse with the same blind faith with which we follow personalities on the internet. For years, we have known that social media use damages the mind, the attention span, the sense of self-worth. All of this is established; it has long been researched. And yet we seem to overlook the broader consequences. Which consequences do I mean? I have written the fuller answer in another essay: The Great Machine — Dataism and the Death of the Self (10 pages)

But one thing I can tell you now:

Our world — our real world — is both beautiful and close. Sometimes it is enough simply to stay outside when the dark clouds gather, and perhaps get a little wet.

Postscript

I am often told that I write about themes and connections without offering concrete solutions — or that the solutions I do offer are too abstract. Allow me to offer a counterpoint.

For me, dark clouds have always signified the future. The future, with its countless contingencies and combinations, is simply uncertain — much as it is uncertain whether it will actually rain when the clouds are not yet quite black. I feel that same uncertainty when I consider what I should do today.

Is it more worthwhile to engage with academic content — I study a heavily theoretical subject, after all — or is it wiser to read a book? Perhaps I will learn something beautiful about human emotion from someone else's perspective. But perhaps it makes more sense to write to people in my circle — via WhatsApp, email, or letter — even if more than ninety percent of them never write back.

Yet I find myself breaking out of that spiral of thought fairly quickly when I remember the words of Carl Jung and a trusted friend of mine.

Jung believed that things are neither wrong nor right — they simply are. And one should not spend too long deliberating whether one did the right thing, because what was done was simply part of who we are. A fuller account is contained in another essay of mine: An Endless War Between You and Yourself — The One War You Will Not Win (11 pages)

And my trusted friend always used to tell me that I do not actually need to justify my happiness to anyone. That I owe no one an explanation for why I feel content — though it is only recently that I have truly come to understand what she meant.

And the things that make me happy? They are the same things I listed above, in speaking of dark clouds and the future. Perhaps that is precisely the point: perhaps it is the things that carry uncertainty that make us happy — because they cannot guarantee that they will. Nobody marvels at a bottle of drinking water, because that most essential of goods is, in the EU, effectively guaranteed and taken for granted. But place that same bottle somewhere drought-stricken. Then even the cold rain — the rain that makes most people in the West unhappy because they might get wet, because they could have stayed inside when they saw the dark clouds gathering — that very rain becomes, in such places and such lives, exactly what you need. Not the droplets themselves, or the rain as such, or the getting wet. But perhaps simply this: that you should spend some time outside when it rains, when it is uncomfortable, when it is not what you wished for — when you are the person who stayed outside while everyone else went home.

Sources:

• The Society of the Spectacle, Guy Debord
• Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, Guy Debord
• Simulacra and Simulation, Jean Baudrillard
• Jean Baudrillard in Cyberspace: Internet, Virtuality, and Postmodernity, Mark Nunes
• An Illustrated Guide to Guy Debord's 'The Society of the Spectacle', Tiernan Morgan & Lauren Purje

‍