Nathan Devers, philosopher and a writer, published his new novel, Les Liens artificiels, as a critical vision of virtual worlds. For him, the Metaverse acts out the disappearance of the public sphere in favor of a personal universe that would make any democratic endeavor an impossibility. He depicts a society governed by the giants of Silicon Valley, the “new gods” who set up technology as a true religion. The book is in the running for the prestigious Goncourt des lycéens and Renaudot prizes.
Missions Publiques. You have written a book that some describe as prophetic, even dystopian, which paints a picture of what the tech giants promise: a virtual future in the Metaverse. The hero of your novel, or anti-hero, is a man disappointed by his real life, and flees it to take refuge in a life-size Metaverse. He leads a life of dreams, of success but not without dangers… So the Metaverse: emancipation or withdrawal of the individual?
Nathan Devers. If I have taken a critical look at anything here, it is less at the Metaverse and more at the reality that makes it possible. Les Liens artificiels is neither a pamphlet nor an apology for the Metaverse; rather, I wanted to take seriously what I believe to be a great civilizational promise: that of Silicon Valley by the great pioneers of tech.
The universe of my novel begins at the end of the pandemic. At that time, people spoke of the “next era” and the idea was to “reinvent everything”. My character had the impression that he wouldn’t fit into this “after-world” that was being proposed to him, which explains his attraction to social media, to screens and to the Metaverse. The latter is what the digital revolution promised us: emancipation, freedom and the creation of a fairer and more connected society (in the sense of more connections between people). So, my book questions us about these great promises of emancipation: is it a real salvation or just a mirror of what is wrong in reality?
Since the novel came out, many people told me it was dystopian, but others (especially high school students) told me it showed a space of freedom, beauty and poetry to the point of calling it a tribute to our universe; I was happy that there were two receptions.
If I had to classify it in a genre, I would say that it is a novel of apocalypse, in the literal sense of the term (etymologically, the word “apocalypse” meaning “unveiling” or, in the religious vocabulary, “revelation”) because there is something fundamentally religious in the project of the digital revolution and in particular of the Metaverse. It is the advent of a religion of technology, of the arrival of another world where everything is possible, where connections are multiplied and where we are no longer prisoners of the real world… And at the same time, it is an era in crisis of reality where individuals would be dispossessed of reality.
From the moment I live in my bubble, that the world is my bubble and that I see the world from within my bubble, I do not need to rub myself with the materiality or the body of others. I am in a world where otherness is suppressed. It is the advent of a selfish world, with the disappearance of physicality, of people and even of truth. We have seen it with disinformation in times of political or health crisis: everyone lives in their own truth. This withdrawal destroys the idea of a common world, of a public sphere, and as in soap bubbles, we would be next to each other, each in an individual sphere.
"If we assume that the Metaverse is the disappearance of the public sphere in favor of a personal universe, then we cannot build a democratic governance of the Metaverse.
Nathan Devers
Writer and philosopher
Missions Publiques. To refine your characters, you have wonderfully analyzed the biographies of Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, who almost seem to have a religious aura. What is your analysis of these tech giants?
Nathan Devers. To escape the emptiness of his existence, Julien, my main character, is seduced by a video game called Antimonde, which promises him a second birth, thanks to his avatar, in a parallel universe of all possibilities, “a virtual planet B where everything is better”, says the inventor of the platform, Adrien Sterner. To paint this Adrien Sterner, I read the biographies of Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and Steve Jobs. I think that these people accomplish all the enchantments of humanity as were Leonardo da Vinci and the great humanists of their time. So I wanted to take them seriously. In my opinion, they have more power than the political power itself. I wanted to know how to understand these people, what were or are the driving forces behind their rise. It is true that they are in the logic of economic markets, but that is a rather superficial key to understanding them. Bill Gates, for example, has an almost puritanical, almost ascetic vision of his money. Zuckerberg, on the other hand, could easily have had a great career with the Democrats in the United States and even become president of the White House, but he wasn’t interested. Power and money are not the key.
No, these people are religious. Not in the sense that they believe in God, but in the sense that they expect technology to change the human condition. Zuckerberg created Facebook in 2004: for the first time ever, a parallel society freed from the chain of materiality comes to life. ally religious project. In my novel, Adrien Sterner bases himself on the apocalypse of John – the great text of the Christian tradition that imagines the end of time. It is a new City of God, almost supraterrestrial and heavenly, which would free itself from the chains of reality. It is already a deeply religious idea. With Meta, Zuckerberg wants to recreate the world and take on the role of God. He is at the forefront of all metaphysical issues: he wants to rethink the human being and push back the limits of the human condition. This is why I consider it a fundamentally religious project. In my novel, Adrien Sterner bases himself on the apocalypse of John – the great text of the Christian tradition that imagines the end of time.
These men are driven by a religion of technology. Faced with every major metaphysical, political and moral problem, they believe that the answer will be technological. Elon Musk is convinced that technical answers will solve the problem of death or cognitive failure, for example.
In all the arts, whether it is cinema, photography or painting, there is an object represented behind the screen, and I am the subject behind the screen. But with the Metaverse, we go beyond this logic of the screen and we even go beyond this dream of representation. That’s what’s major: we rather switch to a mirage of things in their absence. It is comparable to the great dreams of the humanists of the Renaissance.
Missions Publiques. Is it possible to create a responsible and ethical Metaverse in your opinion? What could a democratic governance of the Metaverse look like?
Nathan Devers. If we look at previous digital revolutions (especially the advent of social networks), we can ask ourselves what real impact the legal framework has had on ethical and responsible social networks. In a scattered way, this framework has had a real impact, of course, but basically it reflects a weakness of politics. The United States have shown that social networks have played a major role in destroying and destabilizing democracy during Trump’s term. What we commonly call “the truth” has seen better days. We only need to look around to see that.
The second essential question is evil. Can one continue to do evil in the Metaverse? Can you murder an avatar, for example? It almost comes down to a theological question that nobody can answer yet.
If we assume that the Metaverse is the disappearance of the public sphere in favor of a personal universe, then we cannot build a democratic governance of the Metaverse. The political philosophy of democracy is built around the fact that one does not remain locked up in the purely intimate sphere of one’s friends and family and one’s little “clan”. The public sphere is also a world of truth: Hannah Arendt says it very well. Everyone can have their truths of reason, but we must agree on truths of fact. In my opinion, the Metaverse is the next step: the worlds multiply and in French I would say “everyone will want a world in the image of their navel”. This is what Zuckerberg promised in his presentation video of Meta. I would be very skeptical of the idea of a democracy in the Metaverse.
Will virtual reality make its way into deliberative projects?
