More than 25 years ago, John Naisbitt suggested in his best-seller Megatrends that hi-tech should always be accompanied by hi-touch, that is, a real human connections, to avoid the transformation of communication in the mere act of sharing information. Naisbitt shared his warning before the explosion of IM and social networks.
The issue of how hi-tech affects human communications have been expertly analyzed many times. But I began to reflect again on this issue after reading in Facebook a posting by a person from Mexico who announced she was leaving this networking site because none of those she wanted to help and serve were there.
In her posting, the writer, a missionary and catechist, said orphan children, homeless people, and those facing serious emotional and spiritual challenges in life will seldom if ever go online looking for help.
For that reason, she decided to leave the social networking site to focus on a real networking opportunity, where flesh and blood people suffer, many times alone and without a friendly hand offering help.
Perhaps somebody may think the decision made by the Mexican missionary is too extreme. Somebody else may argue technology is neither good nor bad, depending only in the way it is used. Somebody may say social networking sites can be use to raise awareness about social problems in different communities.
But I can argue there is no virtual substitution for a warm and friendly hug. You can’t dry the tears in somebody’s face at a distance. You can extend your helping hand and touch a person using an avatar or an application.
There is no way to use technology to replace the direct human contact, when you can look somebody in the eyes and share his or her suffering. You can’t express how close you are to another human being in 140 characters or less.
Naisbitt was right in anticipating that the divorce of technology and humanness will lead to the technologization of humankind, but not to the humanization of technology. The fact that I can send an instant message to hundreds of “friends” doesn’t lead me to be closer to any of them and it is even a distortion of the meaning of “friend.”
Somebody may argue that in saying what I am saying and thinking what I think I am not only revealing my age, but also my outdated thinking. It may also be argued that the expansion of technology is unavoidable, as it is shown by the omnipresence of technology in the hands of young people.
It is not my intention to hide neither my age nor my way of thinking. I don’t want to go back to the past or to stop technology. I just want to invite to reflect about the consequences of communication without human touch and understanding.
Pseudo-communication creates even more isolation and distress. Instant communication many times prevents us from thinking before replying. That’s why I deeply agree with Christopher Witt when he expresses that, “Real Leaders Don’t Do PowerPoint.”