I've been thinking and rethinking Andro's question. Whereas I doubt I can prove a downward trend that will inevitably lead to semiotic apocalypse. I can at least force hyperreality to cast a shadow for you people who are paying attention. The reason why hyperreality's shenanigans hide behind reasonable doubt is because it is so impossible to establish cause and effect in these cases... Or at least that's what I think. You can't blame hyperreality because causality is so vague.
But if you consider modern terms of physical beauty, an interesting thing will happen. Lately it has become fashionable for women to be of a very slender physical make-up. This seems to directly opposes any sort of Darwinian mating, as skinny is usually an indicator of poor health. We can assume Hyperreality's involvement here. Because we see it's shadow (i.e. Something that's going against the grain and that is perpetuated by media). Think of a Barbie doll. Let me follow suit here and quote Wikipedia:
One of the most common criticisms of Barbie is that she promotes an unrealistic idea of body image for a young woman, leading to a risk that girls who attempt to emulate her will become anorexic. A standard Barbie doll is 11.5 inches tall, giving a height of 5 feet 9 inches at 1/6 scale. Barbie's vital statistics have been estimated at 36 inches (chest), 18 inches (waist) and 33 inches (hips). According to research by the University Central Hospital in Helsinki, Finland, she would lack the 17 to 22 percent body fat required for a woman to menstruate.[11] In 1965 Slumber Party Barbie came with a book entitled How to Lose Weight which advised: "Don't eat." The doll also came with pink bathroom scales reading 110 lbs., which would be around 35 lbs. underweight for a woman 5 feet 9 inches tall. [12] In 1997 Barbie's body mold was redesigned and given a wider waist, with Mattel saying that this would make the doll better suited to contemporary fashion designs.
Do you see how reality is damaged? No? Let me provide another example... To simulate is to enact a situation that does not exist. To dissimulate is to pretend not to have what one has. What's the chief difference between these two? Simulating is not pretending... If one has the flu and one pretends not to have it, then one still shows symptoms. High temperature. Sweating. Vomiting. But if one is simulating the flu and produces the symptoms. Gags oneself to vomit. Puts heating blankets around one's face. Dabs oneself with a wet towel. Uses make-up to produce pallor. How will anyone know? If someone was in the army of yesteryear and pretended to be crazy or homosexual(both of which were charges for dismissal back then) how could the army tell if they were or weren't?
Wasn't there an old saying that anyone who says he is crazy or tries to be crazy, is crazy? Because that's where reality tags out and hyperreality makes it's seamless transition. A doctor, when treating a patient, has to assume the patient is sick or no treatment can be provided. Even if a patient is obviously simulating their symptoms and the doctor knows it. They're still sick due to their audacity to challenge reality(ala hypochondriac). And if they're truly skilled and the doctor is fooled. A patient complaining of pain, pain(an unobservable sensation of unpleasantness) and needs pain medication. But they simply wish to score Oxycodone or ect... Who is aware of the deception? Only the perpetrator. Even if they are found out, they're still sick(addiction). But if it succeeds then reality has been cheated/altered.
I can go into Transcendental Idealism and factoring noumenon against human perception, but it isn't necessary. Everyone knows that when you see a pale man, sweating, walking hunched over and holding his stomach. That he is sick. It's only confirmed if you ask the man and he replies that he is very sick. But the simple fact is, that scenario cannot describe reality. Only your perception of it. This doesn't cause a semiotic apocalypse, but it is the basis for which to provide one. Be assured that anything developing along the lines of hyperreality will eventually threaten classical reality...sometimes in innocent and unavoidable ways. Sometimes in dangerous and mutilating ways. Because that is what hyperreality is... The mutilation of reality.
If you still need convincing how this can be harmful... Let me make a proposal. Let's talk about pedophilia. Psychologists are hard at work at determining cause and cure for this 'deviant' behavior. Here's my proposal. Just give them an exact simulation of a child(a robot analogue with frantic crying, a hymen, blood, a heartbeat and breathing) and let them **** it as much as they want. What do you think of my proposal; like it? If not, why do you think it's a bad idea? Does it sound in anyway similar to the controversy connected with the barbie doll?
-Sin
Bookmarks