by Peter Löcke //
Real life. I come across the Anglicism "real life" more and more often. It refers to real life as opposed to virtual existence. Does this distinction still exist? Or have the boundaries between real life and digital reality not long since merged? I go in search of clues. Starting with myself.
I am an analog romantic. And yet I write these lines digitally and then send the column by e-mail as a file attachment. I hardly ever use pen and paper anymore. My beautiful handwriting, which I used to be so proud of, has degenerated into a mess. Even signing a document - which contains the verb to sign - is often done digitally. After all, my signature is stored as a scan in a folder on my laptop. I keep meaning to write a letter or at least a postcard. Time and time again, it remains an intention. I don't seem to be that romantic after all, even if I have retained the analog world for other things, such as books.
E-books are replacing real books. There are, of course, a thousand good reasons for this. An e-book reader can hold thousands of books. It is a transportable library measuring approximately seventeen by twelve centimeters. Can I work in and with these e-books? No. I need the thickness and smell of the paper, I need the feel of it, I want to turn the pages back and forth with my fingers and not just scroll with my index finger. In addition to the history of the book, an analog book writes a second, very personal story. This can be dog-eared pages, a dedication from a loved one when I open the book or the coffee stain on page 114 that reminds me how clumsy I was again.
Chats are replacing real dialogs. The fact that a conversation took place face to face is now emphasized. It seems to be the analog exception to a digital rule. As with books, there are good arguments in favor of this form of communication. Online is more effective, saves time and money, especially in a professional context. But gestures and facial expressions fall by the wayside. Emoji or not - the tone of voice of what is said also falls by the wayside. Was it meant to be affectionate, tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic or purely informative, what just reached me via WhatsApp? What resonates in the subtext is lost. In the long term, the human ability to speak face to face is lost. Analog communication is not like riding a bike. You can unlearn it if you have learned it at all.
Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching. The human senses, sensuality is lost. It is not surprising that this loss extends into the physical realm. Cybersex instead of body sex! No, I'm not joking. A colleague of mine regularly makes them at the bar. He recently made this funny joke: "I used to smoke a cigarette after sex. Now I delete my browser history." Humor is a matter of taste. Nevertheless, there is a spark of truth in it.
Maybe I'm exaggerating on all counts. Then the truth is that I'm a diehard. I'm only really worried about one thing. I am afraid of a major war. The threat of a nuclear war seems far greater to me than it did in the 1980s and 90s. Back then, in analog times, this danger moved millions of citizens to take to the streets. Today, in the virtual dream world of 2024, people are staying on their sofas. Why is that? It is at least partly due to the digital age, which makes people less aware of real dangers. I experience the war as a media live ticker, in a mixture of computer game and soccer match.
How are the games going at the moment? Bayern are leading 1-0 against Augsburg and two more goals are scored shortly before the end. How nice! Ukraine are behind in the parallel match against Russia. That's not so nice. So we have to substitute the players Taurus and Co to avert defeat. I read that the new chancellor-designate Friedrich Merz isn't worried about a possible nuclear war, only to turn the wheel and the escalation spiral in the next moment. I am already worried, Mr. Merz. I am. I'm also worried about how little the people around me are worried. The same people who are living through fears of death because of a virus and the weather in 2050 feel no fears about a third world war. Virtual and actual reality are merging more and more every day. But this numb perception of real life is not real for me. It is surreal because it ignores real death. In the real digital life of the 21st century, you can't just go offline.
Why is it that so few people feel this? Why is it that the snowflake generation in particular doesn't feel it? It is precisely in the youth, at school and in universities that punk should be taking off and resistance should be offered. One possible answer to the "why" lies in my youth, when I was still listening to punk music. Back in the analog days of the 20th century, the band "Bad Religion" wisely described the digital youth of the 21st century. The chorus of the song, freely translated into German, goes like this:
Because I am a digital boy of the 21st century.
I don't know how to live, but I have a lot of toys.
My father is a lazy intellectual from the middle class.
My mom is on Valium, so ineffective.
Isn't life a riddle?
Articles identified by name do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the publisher.
English 
German 
Spanish
5 Responses
Chapeau, Mr. Löcke!
Your column is an important source of conversation and food for thought.
Thank you very much.
"There will be no nuclear war, barring an unlikely "accident"." This very sentence, and the certainty behind it, are dangerous because they undermine the "balance of terror" that brought us seventy years of peace. It meant that no major nuclear power believed it could win a nuclear war. A first strike is followed by a second strike! That was the certainty that kept the peace. Efforts to reduce the second-strike capability of the enemy were secured and, if necessary, thwarted by the restrictions on the deployment of medium-range missiles. SS20 was followed by Pershing 2 and finally the INF Treaty of 1987. In 2019, the USA withdrew from the INF Treaty. Russia and the USA accused each other of undermining the treaty. Since then, the world has been more insecure because both sides (or just the USA?) believe they can eliminate their opponent's second-strike capability. A dangerous thought, because it undermines the balance of terror. The hypersonic weapons, nuclear or conventional, which currently only Russia possesses, shift the game to a new level to Russia's advantage: Russia has one more conventional option than the USA, for example in the Ukraine war, to counter the attack with conventional short-range missiles such as ATMACS or Taurus. And they can hardly be intercepted as they fly at Mach 10. With its first deployment last week, Russia showed that it has a wild card below the nuclear threshold (which has been redefined) that stings. (What is NATO actually doing with a budget 10 times higher?) - Nevertheless, the belief that there will be no nuclear war (or rather tactical nuclear strike leading to a nuclear war) is dangerous because it leads to recklessness, namely the belief that a major nuclear power can be defeated conventionally in a proxy war - and that it would then admit defeat without using tactical nuclear weapons.
I basically see it the same way, any situation that sees the enemy with its back to the wall could trigger a nuclear strike and corresponding counterstrikes. Using tactical nuclear weapons is also highly dangerous for an escalation to nuclear war and therefore both are very unlikely. What are all the bigwigs supposed to do with a nuclear contaminated Riviera or similar?
Well observed. The switch from analog to digital brings more change than some people think. A cyber world is actually emerging in which we move - as a human-machine interface. This is very obvious in the modern car with its many digital helpers. The driver switches on Road Assist and takes his feet off the pedal. Cybersex beats real sex by far. Modern society is oversexed and underfucked. Computer games simulate a parallel world in which many people lose themselves. You can fly airplanes with Google. And when a crash threatens, you press the reset button. - Don't tell me that this doesn't change our consciousness, our perception of reality. What's more, everything we know about the world today, we know through the media, says Luhmann. This allows reality to be perfectly framed and reinterpreted as something digitally real. If the atomic bomb falls, you press the reset button. - Modern man blames his political helpers for the fact that it doesn't fall. They actually believe they will sort it out for them. Just like the many digital assistance systems. War? That was yesterday. Google, Microsoft or Apple will prevent that, won't they? Only sometimes do postmodern people still wonder whether the many deaths in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya and Ukraine are actually real? And why no one pressed the reset button? But better not ask, that would be so old school. It's probably just a software error. And it's also so far removed from us modern people. For now, it's Christmas. By the way, there's a digital nativity play - so cute!
There will be no nuclear war, apart from an unlikely "accident". No wonder Friedrich vom Schwarzen Stein is not afraid - neither am I. This new Russian missile means that the aircraft carriers are history, so the cards have been reshuffled. The US alliance is defenceless in terms of conventional weapons for the foreseeable future. Everyone involved knows this, what we are experiencing in the media is, as so often, theatrical thunder intended to stir up fear. Frightened citizens are not sovereign, perhaps it's as simple as that. The USA will become increasingly indifferent to continental Europe, even more so under Trump. In effect, the war in Ukraine is actually against our interests, while at the same time Ukrainian and Russian conscripts and volunteers are dying or being wounded by the hundreds of thousands. Inevitably in war, war crimes are committed against the civilian population on both sides. Surveys show that almost no one believes that anyone politically responsible, apart from the BSW and AfD, wants peace. At the same time, three quarters of people want an end to violence. How does the political class legitimize its agenda to the population? Do they know better than we do? Do they want to do justice to their voters or do they, loosely based on Baerbock, not care about them? More and more people are asking themselves these questions. There is hardly any discussion in public and many are now afraid to speak their minds - why is that? Voters increasingly believe that only the political pariahs, BSW and AfD, have a recognizable will for peace and are voting accordingly. This means that both parties are taking their first steps towards becoming a people's party; the SPD, the Left Party and, to a limited extent, the Greens should not believe that they can permanently make policy against the majority on the left. The same applies to the CDU. The war is lost and was never winnable, I hope that the right conclusions will be drawn from this.