> Like what?This is not the best example, but things like helping hundreds or thousands of people on something like stackoverlow is an achievement in the virtual or online world that is simply not available in the physical world because stackoverflow only exists online. The same thing could be said of Wikipedia, which is essentially an online-only phenomena that you can not participate in in the physical world.
You could argue that people could be helped in the physical world instead of online on a site like stackoverflow, and one could contribute to a physical encyclopedia like the Britannica instead of Wikipeida: but the dynamics of these sites and media are very different, and I would argue they are not equivalent. Things like the policies, credentials, editorial policies, social dynamics, etc, are so different that they many ways more different than alike.
> I don't think it matters much if you can't support yourself
Well, the Hikikomori are not supporting themselves, but they could and often do manage to survive by the generous help of their families. Many ancient hermits and some modern ones survived by help from society. There is now talk of a living wage. All of these means of survival do not require the ability to support oneself, and can be viable -- though they are clearly very controversial.
> It's certainly possible to do something worthwhile, generally fail in life, and only have the value of your work recognised after your death. This has happened to many artists who are now regarded as greats in their fields. But I think the online world makes it too easy to delude yourself into thinking what you're doing is worthwhile when in fact it isn't.
Just because you aren't considered now or perhaps never to be a great in your field doesn't mean that what you do is not worthwhile. Much of science and academia is mostly the work of many non-great, ant-like contributors rather than the work of a handful of greats -- though the greats certainly get a lot more credit (sometimes justly, sometimes not).
Wikipedia is even more like hive mind rather than the result of the work of a few geniuses. In the modern world, even the idea of taking credit is in many cases collapsing and reverting to models that resemble the anonymous contributions of the ancients, as people adopt temporary pseudonyms as they join the hive to make their little contribution or edit and then exit again, to possibly reappear under another pseudonym for another contribution later, or not.
For all we know, Wikipedia could have been built mostly by Hikikomori.
> So much of the online world is premised on feedback loops and empty rewards, like levels in games or even karma points on Hacker News. You get "praised" by these systems just for using them. It can become an addiction like gambling can become an addiction. It becomes easy to lose perspective and waste time pursuing something that is ultimately valueless.
Sure. Absolutely. Completely agreed here. But just because that's possible doesn't mean that that's the only way to interact with these media and phenomena, nor that it's even the most prevalent way. Also, man "great" men and other prolific contributors to many things that are considered "great" could be said to have been obsessed or addicted. It's just that the successful ones and the ones societies value get the praise, while things unvalued (even if only temporarily) are ignored or even denigrated. But who really has perspective on the worth of some endeavor, especially a long-term perspective, as in how valuable your efforts might seem to someone hundreds or thousands of years in the future.
Look at all the minutia collected on Wikipedia. Much of it is considered garbage, but it could be a gold mine for pop culture scholars or future archaeologists or anthropologists.
> You gave the example of helping others in online forums. Let's say that's, for example, helping people with Microsoft Windows. I'd say all you're doing in that case is taking on the cost of Microsoft's software support. You're making the cost of doing business cheaper for Microsoft with no real return for yourself. Altruism is good, but I think too many people do it at too much cost to themselves.
I'd still take the position that providing free support for Microsoft is less of a waste of one's life than the typical view that the mass media has of online solitaries: that all they do is surf porn or Facebook all day. At least in the support case, they're helping people. That's constructive.
But there are tons of other ways of helping people on stackoverflow and online in general. Providing free support for corporations is just one very minor option. But even there, you're providing support not just for the corporations but for the users, which is a noble goal -- especially when it's done for free.