The virtual world that will contribute to significant social change hasn’t come along yet, according to Ben Rigby in an interview with tweedy Web 2.0 prof and raving ACA-Fan Henry Jenkins. Rigby, whose new book, Mobilizing Generation 2.0, tries to parse Web 2.0 tools like blogs, social networking sites, youTube and the lot as a mobilizing force for social change – or maybe, as we’re seeing today, to try to get someone elected President.

But when it comes to virtual worlds, they suffer from too much Snow Crash and not enough vision. He does give Second Life, the leading virtual world, some credit, saying:

Second Life was such an early sensation that it has, thus far, defined what is meant by “virtual world.” In fact, it’s gone further by defining the common understanding of character-driven 3D space (which is distinct from a “virtual world”).

But success has come at a price, spawning knock-offs and serving as set pieces:

Second Life’s early success and recent woes have, in fact, put a damper on innovation in the 3D space. Second Life and its imitators (of which there are now dozens, including Google’s recent project called Lively) continue to replicate Snowcrash. They recreate fantasy versions of something that approximates real-life. And social change efforts in these worlds are doomed. They are shoddy replications of experiences that are better in real life: walkathons, tschotchke giveaways, museum exhibits.

But these efforts are only the first forays into what will eventually be the next world changing technical movement. Snowcrash is not where we’ll end up. The potential of immersive 3D space is much greater than imitating and fantasizing about our existing reality. Remember in 1995 when businesses would scan their paper brochures and use the resulting JPG as their Web site? That’s where we are today with the use of 3D space.

Maybe Rigby has a point. The deeper potential of immersive spaces has only been hinted at in Second Life, and other virtual worlds, as I’ve maintained – things like reflective architecture or even great virtual art are merely shadows of the potential for conceptual uses of 3D spaces that we’re seeing hints of in things like Microsoft’s PhotoSynth and Worldwide Telescope.

Mind you, Rigby’s also more critical than he is visionary and has the smug kind of academic sneer when it comes to Second Life that I heard at the NMC conference: what was the wonder child last year is something to cluck over this year, at least until it swings around and kicks you in the butt like most of the kids will do who sense people taking advantage of their Net savvy.

Rigby betrays his lack of knowledge when he imagines Second Life how got started:

[Scene: friends sitting around a poker table drinking beer]
Philip Rosedale: Have you guys read Snowcrash?
Friend #1: Yea, it rocked.
Philip Rosedale: Wouldn’t it be cool if we built that thing?
Friend #2: What thing?
Philip Rosedale: The thing! The actual virtual world that Stevenson describes. I know some tech guys.
Friend #1: Phil, you should do it. That would rock.
Philip Rosedale: Yea, maybe I will.

Excuse me? Beer? Poker? What kind of California does he think Rosedale lives in?

I’m convinced it was more like this:

[Scene: Mitch and Philip sit in the Lotus position (Mitch more awkwardly) and stare out at the surf]
Philip Rosedale: Mitch, you ever read Snowcrash?
Mitch Kapor: I’d like some chai tea.
Pip: We could make that, man, and, um, it would be virtual and things.
Mitch: I can’t remember if I’m supposed to take my Singularity vitamin pack before or after I eat.
Pip: Want me to call Kurzweil?
Mitch: Virtual. Devices. Connectivity. Open source it.
Pips: Can’t. Not enough money. We’d need to make money but we’ll wipe ourselves clean of commerce once we can upload our brains.
Mitch: I’ll fund it. Cool. Hand me a granola bar. But tell people it’s like the next Internet OK? Don’t want people thinking we’ve gone crazy.