Domenico de Masi, an italian economist, has no tv in his house. With no tv, people talk, play cards, sip wine, read, write, and sleep well.

If not for my wife (maybe a soap-opera addict), I’d rather have no tv in the house either.

What if?
Science fiction predicts a time when computers achieve a level of “intelligence” above humans. If that era arrives, will our interactions with bots be more satisfying and fulfilling than our interaction with fellow humans? Perhaps our current laments about the demise of human interaction are simply the “growing pains” that we feel .. as we evolve towards that point???

What if?
A time comes when instead of debating the lawfulness of Gay Marriage, we debate whether a man can marry one’s lifelong robot companion?

What if?
Humans and their robot companions travel to other solar systems with vast resources — such that the historical human conflicts over scarce resources become an artifact?

These may be day dreams, but they are no more unrealistic than our current world would be to our great grandparents.

Alas, getting back to reality — I just wish I could find a comfortable deskchair…. cheers, Rocky.

1) I think so. The wave could have greater than expected impact on our kids’ lives (and ours as well). I have no doubt that at the macro level we’ll adapt because the change is gradual and we’ve adapted to many similar waves before this. I certainly can’t go as far as Rule #22 in the Rules of Acquisition but these macro forces seem to impact everything around us.

2) I don’t know if these apply universally. Maybe societies at different stages of development respond differently to the near-simultaneous stimuli – infusion of similar technologies. For example, the effect of a social networking site in the US may be different than the effect of a similar site in China or Russia (then again I can hear the arguments about features or culture being responsible). Small town vs. urban areas is another difficult question because I can only see from my little corner. There could also be regional winds (South vs. North East, etc.). I wish I had another life to study this rather than just being impacted by it. I’d have added education to your list of attributes (economy, political affiliation, etc.). Unfortunately, I only get a few hits here but it would be nice if people from other corners could comment and confirm/deny these thoughts.

3) The common goal need not be universal but is very powerful. The goal back in the dark days in Armenia was a form of survival in the face of blockades (human drivers), the earthquake (natural drivers), and the fight for independence (internal drivers). The common goal often conflicts with the individual goal (a powerful cornerstone of US culture). The contribution to the common goal here happens through funding (taxes, charity, etc.) and through labor but technology has revealed more targets for contribution. If time is limited, my sense is we contribute less, but perhaps more of us contribute (awareness, mobilization, high volume smaller contributions, etc.). Has technology helped? Proponents of micro-lending, for example, would most likely say “Yes.”

As always your questions added more than my initial post. But the fact is that both of us spent time reading and thinking about these points. This technology facilitated in my learning and that is very positive but it forced me to remain in front of the screen – isolated. What if Rocky was a fictional character inside a computer game? What if the exchange was on a Wii in a living room while playing “fictional” golf or something else? What if the time was spent reading news? The issue I am struggling with is that this in the end is alone individual interaction with a machine. If enough people do it for long enough, will it not have long-term impact? Is that impact mostly positive or negative (does it matter if the impact is unavoidable)?

I wonder:

1) Whether your astute observations about changing human interaction (which the Facebookers ironically call “social networking”) is an evolving phenomenon associated with nuclear families ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family ) as opposed to extended families?

2) Whether your observations are universal? Or are they geographic and socio-economic? Do you think that the “internal environment” is better in small towns where the local church, PTA, Rotary Club, etc. are the social nexus — as compared with the big cities, where the corporate rat race and competition for status and wealth predominate? (Note that these small towns are frequently economically depressed — and are typically politically conservative too….)?

3)Lastly and most importantly, I wonder whether the ultimate issue is the lack of a common goal that people can near-universally unite behind?