I was reading this book Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond by Michael Ignatieff. He discusses how we wage war in the information age. He raised some interesting points, we have moved away from the concept of "total war" where the entire nation is mobilized. Instead, like the NATO Kosovo invasion, the use of intelligent weapons have moved war away from the battlefield to the computer screens. Sometimes war is even waged in our televisions. The NATO forces uses the media to inform the Serbs of planned bombing to avoid casualties. However, Milosevic would strategically put civilians in these target areas, to draw less support for the NATO efforts. If it is a virtual war, how do you know when you have achieved victory? Waging a war for humanitarian reasons is a paradox. Can a war, for a just cause, be fought justly? These are some of the questions Ignatieff raises in the book.
Is the idea of virtual love a contradiction? Mr. Webster defines love as "A strong positive emotion of regard and affection". You can have these emotions for someone who lives far away, even for someone you have not even met. But then he also defines love as "Sexual activities (often including sexual intercourse) between two people". Is virtual sex considered a sexual activity? That's like asking if watching porn is considered as sexual acitivity. Can you be in love with someone you cannot touch? You cannot be in the same crowded room, where you would always catch him stealing a glimpse of you. You will not see the look on his eyes, that look of childlike wonder, that tells you that he is in love with you. No holding hands, no exchange of saliva, you cannot sit on his lap, he cannot give you a piggy-back ride, no hugs, no happy endings. Why then are there so many people going to the internet to find love? And why are we pining for someone so far away when there could be someone just a cab ride away? Is it because virtual love does not hurt as much as loving someone you interact with on a daily basis? Or is it because you cannot choose who you love?
Is the idea of virtual love a contradiction? Mr. Webster defines love as "A strong positive emotion of regard and affection". You can have these emotions for someone who lives far away, even for someone you have not even met. But then he also defines love as "Sexual activities (often including sexual intercourse) between two people". Is virtual sex considered a sexual activity? That's like asking if watching porn is considered as sexual acitivity. Can you be in love with someone you cannot touch? You cannot be in the same crowded room, where you would always catch him stealing a glimpse of you. You will not see the look on his eyes, that look of childlike wonder, that tells you that he is in love with you. No holding hands, no exchange of saliva, you cannot sit on his lap, he cannot give you a piggy-back ride, no hugs, no happy endings. Why then are there so many people going to the internet to find love? And why are we pining for someone so far away when there could be someone just a cab ride away? Is it because virtual love does not hurt as much as loving someone you interact with on a daily basis? Or is it because you cannot choose who you love?
No comments:
Post a Comment