Out of Touch - The Joylessness of a Contact Free Society

I recently went bowling with family members, and halfway through the game my brother mused how much less fun the whole thing would be if we didn’t have automatic pin setters. Indeed, thanks to them, we were able to focus on playing and enjoying each other’s company. As I’m sure has happened many times over the course of human progress, most of us take for granted the countless technological advances that make our lives easier and more pleasant, while at the same time anticipating, whether nervously or euphorically, any kind of innovation that might come next.

Enthusiasts of modernity will point to self-service elevators and self-driving vehicles as obvious examples of how much more productive and creative we can become when we outsource menial tasks to machines and AI. Smart phones, smart grids and smart cities bring prosperity and enhance our quality of life, they will rightfully argue. But what happens when the pursuit of innovation is meant to not only offer convenience, efficiency and enjoyment, but intentionally limit human contact?

Heads in the Cloud

South Korea (Asia’s fourth largest economy) is now leading - and heavily investing in - a socio-technological movement that is centered precisely on this idea. Introduced in 2017 as a marketing term for all non-face-to-face transactions, “untact” (non-contact) became in 2020 a de facto government policy that aims to remove layers of human interaction from society in the pursuit of economic growth. It gained momentum during the pandemic and is expanding rapidly across sectors from healthcare to business and entertainment.?

President Moon Jae-in’s Digital New Deal - which is part of a five-year stimulus package – outlines plans to boost “untact industries” and “untact services”, which includes helping small and medium-sized businesses set up virtual conferencing and online sales support, building “smart hospitals” for remote treatment of patients, and investing in other technologies such as “untact biometric systems” at airports. Robots will brew and serve coffee. Drones will police the streets. Kids will attend school from home. Office buildings will become relics of the past. Music concerts and sport events will be hosted in the Metaverse. Customers will shop for groceries, electronics, automobiles, financial services and leisure activities using self-checkout kiosks. Sexy computer voices will offer their “personalized assistance”. Our heads will be quite literally in the cloud, and “untact consumption” will be glorious.

We have already caught glimpses of this brave new world here and there, and the case for accelerating such transition relies on familiar selling points. Save time. Save money. Save energy. Avoid people. Avoid contagion. Reduce overhead. Eliminate friction. Download the app. Don’t call us, we’ll call you (no need to speak to a human being unless you really want to). Koreans may have coined the term, but “untact” is now a core driving principle for global leaders and corporate behemoths, as it is considered to be a potential economic engine that helps save on labor costs, cut bureaucracy and increase productivity.

Less Sex, Fewer Workers

Several countries appear to have little choice but to fully embrace this project, given their plummeting birthrates and shrinking workforce. The Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, for instance, now predicts that China’s population will be down to less than half of what it is today by the end of the century. Japan’s population is projected to drop 16.3% by 2050. South Korea expects the median age of its citizens to rise from 43 in 2021 to 62 by 2070. Many European nations, including Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal, are facing a similar dilemma. Moreover, the average fertility rate for OECD members fell below replacement level (2.1 children per woman) in the mid-1980’s, and has continued a steady decline since.

Some of the positive reasons driving this trend are well known - higher educational attainment and labor force participation among women, reduced levels of child mortality and teenage pregnancies combined with much longer lifespans, increased access to contraceptives, and other changes in sociocultural norms - all of which has been made possible and/or accompanied by greater overall economic prosperity.

At the same time, massive migrations from rural to urban environments have elevated the cost of living and raising children, and prompted couples to pursue careers and wait longer before bearing offspring, or forgo parenthood altogether. In more extreme cases, of course, governments set in motion coercive interventions to curb population growth (e.g. China’s infamous one-child policy). Last but not least, activists have repeatedly voiced ethical concerns about humanity’s reproductive potential in the face of climate change and other threats to our planet’s sustainability.?

The terms ‘birthrate’ and ‘fertility rate’, however, can be somewhat vague and misleading because they don’t explain the root cause of what’s going on. A key phenomenon, which has only made occasional headlines and could significantly contribute to the so-called “population collapse” in several developed nations, is young adults being less sexually active. In the U.S. alone, the proportion of people between 18 and 29 reporting having no sex in the past year almost tripled during the past decade (pre-pandemic). Strangely enough, the introduction of Tinder in 2012 (and other dating apps) appears to only have exacerbated this shift, most notably among men.?

It’s a funny thing how much time this particular age cohort spends discussing gender identity without actually experiencing intimacy with a partner, isn’t it? But what seems more ironic in the broader conversation is that legislators, marketers and tech companies are trying to address a problem that is - at least to some extent - caused by a lack of human contact by further de-incentivizing contact. And I can’t help but wonder if, on the economic front, resigning ourselves to making automated jobs even more ubiquitous might lead to greater anxieties about job security, which in turn leaves people feeling ever less confident about starting a family, which ultimately produces fewer baristas, doctors, teachers, architects, musicians, engineers, astronauts and scientists. The human kind, that is.

Is it possible, or even desirable, to course-correct and halt this chain reaction? I am not framing this as a rhetorical question but rather a deep and complicated sociological, philosophical and moral one, for which I don’t yet have a solid answer. That said, it seems evident to me that, from a human relationship perspective, something is clearly amiss here. Leaving aside the potential misalignment between problem and solution when it comes to “untact” as a socioeconomic policy (along with its financial incentives), what mostly intrigues me are the psychological, cultural and public health implications of suppressing one of the most vital channels through which we sense the world around us, namely physical touch.

Under the Skin

The first thing all of us do when we hurt ourselves is put our hand on the affected area. We give it a good rub, caress it gently or press down hard on it. Similarly, if we feel and itch, we scratch. Reiki practitioners use their hands to improve the flow and balance of energy in the body to support healing. Massage therapy helps us regain optimal muscle tone, restore our mobility and relax our minds. In its many forms, physical touch can alleviate pain, strengthen our immune system, stimulate or stabilize our brain activity, and enhance our general sense of well-being. It’s no wonder, then, that a simple hug or seductive stroke can be so incredibly powerful, and Oxytocin has been nicknamed the cuddle hormone.

Though we often don’t consciously realize it, physical touch helps regulate our mood, our health and our relationships in a very direct manner. It is a foundational component of our biological and social makeup, as it gives us a sense of security, comfort, pleasure and connection. This is in fact true for all mammals, and many other animal species. Once criticized by the medical establishment as unsanitary and overindulging, affective touch is now considered to play a vital role in the development of infants and children, as it elicits physiological responses in the form of parasympathetic activation, pain modulation and stress relief. Nerve receptors in the skin, known as C-tactile nerve fibers, are already mature in newborns, and stimulating them is an important part of their early socialization. Furthermore, research has shown that cognitive differences tend to emerge between babies who have experienced a lot of touch and those who have had very little. Hence their capacity to learn is also activated as a result.

Touch is the very first language we learn. It is key for communicating our needs and desires, and establishing social bonds, as well as understanding limits and boundaries. It is largely through physical contact, including pillow fights and roughhousing, that kids learn how to measure and control their strength. Likewise, it is how we develop a number of other life skills such as reciprocity and reconciliation, well into adulthood. It is the reason why we came up with the gesture of a handshake and expressions like “you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours”. Lack of contact, on the other hand, along with other forms of sensory deprivation, is a sure path to loneliness, anxiety and depression, among other health risks - as Covid lockdowns and social distancing guidelines have made abundantly clear.

“For a very long time, neuroscience revolved exclusively around everything happening in the brain, and we completely disregarded the whole interaction between brain and body.”

- Dr. Rebecca B?hme, Center for Social and Affective Neuroscience (Link?ping, Sweden)

Wake Up and Touch the Roses

Some of the most groundbreaking and exciting work being done today in the field of “biomechatronics” focuses on restoring the sensation of touch for individuals who wear prosthetics. In her recent National Geographic cover story, author Cynthia Gorney explores this topic in depth, while sharing several examples of how this evolving science is already being applied. The article reminds us that the skin is the largest organ in the human body and, most of all, draws our attention to the complex structures and signals linking our skin and nervous system. Though still in its early stages of development, "touch-restoration research” has been producing impressive results, not just in terms of functional output but also, thanks to the powerful testimony of subjects who voluntarily put their own bodies through the experiments, a renewed appreciation for what it means to be able to experience the touch of human skin after long periods of deprivation. “For six years I had not held my wife’s hand with my left hand, and now I was. It’s the emotion that goes with any kind of touch. It is … it’s being complete”, recounts one of them.

As it inevitably ventures into the realm of virtual reality, the article clarifies that there is a big difference between restoring touch in someone’s artificial limb and replicating touch in the digital sphere, like we have been able to do with sight and sound (albeit imperfectly). Will VR headsets, bodysuits and tactile sensors eventually convince our brains that we can truly feel someone’s handshake, hug or kiss while standing on opposite sides of the Atlantic? Will computer interfaces of the not so distant future be able to trick our olfactory system into “smelling” the image of a flower on a tablet? Will biomechatronic taste buds make us less picky about the food we eat?

Software and hardware engineers continue to blur the lines between the real and imaginary realms, sometimes aiming to solve humanity’s biggest challenges, or otherwise simply for the sake of it. I am therefore cautious not to dismiss what new frontiers can be conquered by their genius. More power to them! But what are we to make of an entertainment enhancement company that openly advertises a gamers’ vest as “virtual insanity”?

Perhaps what concerns me most is not the technological possibilities but the PR story. When I hear Mark Zuckerberg speak of the Metaverse as an “embodied internet”, I can feel the hairs on the back of my neck stand up - no vest required! I don’t have anything against Silicon Valley’s obsession with looking at everything as an optimization problem, but I do strongly object to tech moguls changing the meaning of words to suit their commercial or political ambitions. A key problem that arises when we begin to lose contact with the physical world, with nature, with other beings, and with our own bodies, is that we begin to lose contact with the meaning of things, even reality itself. What may be practical and convenient is one thing, and I gladly welcome innovations that benefit us. But what is essential and nourishing to the human soul is quite another entirely, and we should be skeptical of anyone who tries to conflate these two concepts.

It should go without saying that the term “embodiment” means the act of embodying, or the state of being embodied - if only we are willing to keep our heads above our shoulders and our feet on the ground. Hence, being in our bodies is part of what makes us feel wholly alive, fully present in the world. To be clear, I am not referring to body identity (a.k.a. ‘I can be anything I want’) nor any of the movement’s most popular expressions today. Instead, I wish to invite the reader to seriously consider mind-body-spirit alignment and integration as a conduit for discovering the many wonders that life’s ups and downs have to offer. You know, things like pleasure, surprise, heartbreak, observation, friendship, love, triumph, doubt, mystery, struggle and resilience.

During one of the most memorable scenes of Good Will Hunting, Robin Williams' character Sean Maguire confronts Will (played by Matt Damon) by pointing out the difference between being smart and educated, and actually living life. “So if I asked you about art you’d probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written”, he says, halfway through his monologue. “Michelangelo? You know a lot about him. Life’s work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientation, the whole works, right? But I bet you can’t tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You’ve never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling.”

The Role of Technology

As we have seen, gadgets and gizmos can, to some degree, aid us in the process of awakening our senses. In extreme cases, they can help someone feel alive again. However, there is a huge difference, in my estimation at least, between technology as an enabler and facilitator versus technology as a replacement for the human experience. No matter how amazing the device or program, there is no substitute - and no match, I would argue - for what Ms. Gorney referred to as “the orchestral coordination behind sensations we take for granted”.

History has repeatedly shown that the same technology can be used for noble as well as nefarious purposes, and we oftentimes suffer the unforeseen consequences produced by good intentions. When it comes to physical touch, machines that are meant to awaken our senses could also leave us helplessly numb, perhaps even without realizing it.

We may be asked to believe that riding a horse, traveling to a distant land, eating a juicy steak, enjoying the company of family, or even governing a nation can be done just as well in a virtual setting as in person. For whatever reason, we may want to believe that this is actually the case, and, as a result, glance over the existential risks associated with losing contact with ourselves, with others, and with our surroundings.

The whole idea behind “untact” is to run a more cost-efficient, friction free and productive society. It says nothing of beauty, wisdom, goodness, hope, or human flourishing. And the ultimate price, obviously, will be the obliteration of what it means to live in a society. We might indeed, as Robert D. Putman famously suggested, end up bowling alone.?