1. Introduction
2. Reasons
3. How AI might lead to aniconism.
4. Why cartoons?
5. How would I practice aniconism?
6. Exceptions.
1. Introduction:
Aniconism is a religious term that refers to avoiding depictions of people and animals.
The justification for this varies, and I sympathise with this concept for non-religious reasons.
I believe banning the portrayal of people and animals from digital and printed material is a benefit for humanity. This includes the portrayal of real-life people as well as cartoon characters.
2. Reasons:
A) The avoidance of parasocial relationships.
Faces humanise the individual, and it's only natural that by making eye contact, soaking in their facial expressions and therefore their feelings, you will begin to connect with them. However, without any reciprocation on their side, you are bound to be left disappointed.
B) The end of celebrity worshipping culture.
An extreme example of celebrity worship culture is these video edits of celebrities followed by music, a tribute video. This is incredibly odd for someone to sacrifice their time and effort to produce a video for someone who is very unlikely to even see the video, and even if they did, they would forget about it in half a second. By banning images and videos of people, there would be no source material to make edits on.
C) The end of hedonistic entertainment itself.
Naturally, the supermajority of TV shows, movies, and video games would no longer exist since they depict beings, this means people can spend their time pursuing actual hobbies. It would also mean the end of social media, since it would only consist of photos of landscapes and beautiful scenery, which don't get as many engagements, since people who actually care about natural beauty would just go outside. It would also mean the end of pornography of any kind, a medium proven to be detrimental to the human mind and mental health.
D) Advertisements will also change for the better.
Personally, I think advertisements are odd. If your product is great, it should spread via word of mouth. Regardless, many advertisements rely on celebrity endorsements and pretty people to grab attention and direct them towards the product itself. This has gotten so out of hand that people are plastering their faces onto the thumbnails of their videos. They do this to build a connection with you, by incentivising you to watch a video made by a familiar "friend" rather than relying on the actual substance and merit of the video itself.
E) It would make the internet less personalised.
There are some people who seek to make a corner for themselves on the internet. This is a misdirection and a poor way for the individual to express themselves. We should not be trying to build a digital presence on the internet, but rather, the internet should be a place to share actual knowledge, not your biography or who you are.
F) It would protect people's privacy and actually humanise people.
Unfortunately, many videos on the internet seek to record people and use their bad days and outrage to get views on the internet. Alternatively, people who might look unconventional or similar to controversial figures might find their photos taken and uploaded on the internet. If these unsympathetic people knew their videos and photos of unsuspecting passersby would be censored, would they feel incentivised to make such "content"? If you go on social media, you'll find that the majority of "content" relies on (usually unconsenting) people's facial expressions and emotions.
3. How AI might lead to aniconism.
I believe that AI generation and advancements in graphics will lead to a de facto aniconism position among a sizeable number of people who browse the internet, watch TV or read the news. By not knowing whether the person you're looking at on the screen or on paper is real or an AI-generated photo. What's the point of watching a talk show episode if you can't be sure if the people in those videos are real or merely condoned AI-generated versions of the people the talk show claims to have brought on? Eventually, people might get sick and tired of having to guess whose real and who isn't, and focus on real-life interactions. A YouTube video game player decided to create an AI version of himself to react to videos, and this led to a decrease in viewership. People ultimately want to connect with actual human beings, not generated representations of them. There's no AI generation in the real world, so people will seek real-life interactions.
4. Why cartoons?
Earlier, I mentioned that aniconism also applies to cartoon depictions, and while my reasoning above fails to mention cartoon depictions, I'd like to clarify that I believe cartoons are also just as bad. Depending on the mental state of the individual, they can be just as easily attached to cartoons as they might be to humans. Furthermore, the portrayal of cartoons might even be worse than depictions of real-life human beings, since cartoons are not restricted by real-life logic and can fulfil the imaginations of anyone who is susceptible to identifying with them.
5. How I practice aniconism?
I don't have images of humans, avatars, or animals on my website, or by the very least I censor their faces. I also don't concentrate on faces of people or animals in screens or paper.
6. Exceptions.
I think photos and videos of individuals are fine if they are made for the local people. For example, it makes sense to know what your local political representative looks like, or the boss of a building office you walked into. In this case, because you have a likelihood and an incentive in meeting these people, you have a valid reason to know what they look like beforehand so you can identify them. I also think it's okay to have photos and videos of people you know in real life, such as friends and family. I mention this because some believers of aniconism believe all depictions of beings should be banned, and think even family photos are forbidden.