The Limits of Technology

It would not be an overstatement to say that we live in an age of unprecedented access to information. This access to information meanwhile is not only a uni-directional process. People, through the medium of blogs, Twitter feeds, Facebook and other services are not only consumers of content but we can be creators as well. The line between journalist and amateur is getting thinner and thinner as the tools to create content become more available and more affordable to masses of people.

From my own personal experience, I recall first hearing about the "Miracle on the Hudson" not by traditional media outlets but by the Facebook status updates of my friends who were witness firsthand to the different moments of the crash of US Airways Flight 1549. This episode and the multitude of stories like it are having profound implications on the way groups form and act, and on the very structures of society itself.

The truth of this statement extends beyond the domain of news media and enters into every facet of human life; from religions to political movements and everything in between. Isolated stories of wrongdoing in disparate locales throughout the globe no longer remain simply on the minds of residents of that area but rather we, as beneficiaries of the globalization of information, can connect the dots between a wrongdoing in Albany, another one in Brooklyn and another one in Los Angeles and uncover trends and respond in ways that would have been much harder a decade ago. In other words, the transaction costs of organizing for positive social change nationally has dramatically dropped thus making it significantly more accessible for a larger group of people to work towards that goal.

It also means that the temptation to find our outlet for human connection via electronic means will only grow greater as the technology to facilitate that becomes cheaper and easier to use. Robert Putnam in his now generation-defining book, Bowling Alone, argues that social groups, whether they be bowling leagues or rotary clubs, increases "social capital" that allows for healthy and functioning society. The loss of social groups has the predictably opposite effect by reducing social capital and thus negatively impacting the functioning of society. I do not believe that a community where the majority of social interactions are done by distance electronic methods produces the same qualitative results of either the need for human connection people crave nor the increase in necessary social capital that society requires.

I do not want to be mistakenly understood to say that online interaction is utterly unhelpful. On the contrary, online communication allows for the maintenance of long-distance relationships, provides an immeasurably valuable resource for the disabled and home-bound and a whole host of other benefits. However, no matter what benefits may arise from online communications, the need that people have for face-to-face human interaction, with real human touch, will in my opinion never disappear. Just because we may be able to Skype with home-bound senior citizens in Manhattan does not mean that organizations that provide volunteer visitors should fold and close shop. Just because we may be able to connect to a Daf Yomi shiur online does not mean we should altogether stop attending one in person at our local synagogue.

As the march of technological progress continues at its current fast clip, we must not forget to be always cognizant of the limits of any tool. Personal coffee makers and newspaper opinion columns did not replace the coffee shop nor did the telephone replace a regular visit to the grandparents and Skype, Facebook, Twitter and online webinars and whatever else may come will not replace a simple hug and a pat on the back.