No, it's just becoming more convenient. People will never stop interacting 1 on 1 with people (I hope not at least. Reproduction is kind of important) because its fundamental human nature. With digital communications however, we can contact people we otherwise would never meet, or friends we otherwise couldn't reach.

Also, who decided that traditional communication like across the dinner table is how we should relate to each other as human? Just because that's how it has normally been done? One could much more validly assert that humans are gaining a new way to relate to each other.

Modern man is only the current incarnation of a spectrum of species dubbed 'homo' that extends for hundreds of thousands of years (and beyond). Therefore, our habits, diet, strategies for survival and bonding techniques are mutable and constantly changing to meet the needs of our environment.

To believe that there is a standard for homo sapien relations that is constant and must be upheld, in spite of new technologies and new interactive capabilities not originally found on the African Savanna, is to ignore the necessary mutability of nature and the fleeting existance of particular specie.

All of the arguments above are valid so far. First, the benefits of emerging technologies are clear. Being wired into a network serves an endless number of useful means and allows for the exchange of information and ideas between otherwise unrelated people (This post attests to that fact). Second, human beings are indeed ever-changing creatures, constantly adjusting to their environment. The initial prompt does in fact imply that there exists a fixed ideal standard of human interaction, which is false and not my intention. Instead, I'm more interested in examining the costs vs. benefits of digital communication on a social level (which 'Mahollinder' has begun to address).

It is common knowledge that a significant portion of human communication is nonverbal, and a significant part of verbal communication is governed by tone of voice and diction. I think that digital communication gives us as humans a new way to interact with one another, but that this new way is extraneous and neither should nor can replace face-to-face, one-on-one interaction. You can feel as close as you want to somebody on the internet, but if you spent the equivalent amount of time with them face-to-face having a conversation your relationship would be drastically different. Perhaps for the less-than-confident digital communication is a good thing; it doesn't require you to face the person you are talking to, and you can lay something of a groundwork for a relationship before actually meeting. I restate, however, that for the most part no legitimately intimate relationship can come out of only digital communication. If you relate to people mostly by digital means, then yes, I believe that you are losing touch with how to relate in real life.

I believe that digital communication does play a significant role in how people in developed countries communicate and relate to each other. When I was a communications undergrad, I worked on a number of studies that indicate that Americans not only have less friends with whom they share intimate information with, but social distance has increased exponentially since technologies like cellular phones and instant messaging became exceedingly popular.

Moreover, the average individual in developed countries lacks the interpersonal skills of their fathers and grandfathers in face-to-face communication scenarios with one other person. Skill increases in groups of three or more. What that means is that conversational skill in one on one situations has decreased proportionate to the use of digital communication - though this is primarily referring to individual cases (there are exceptions to the rule).

Digital communication has also affected what people expect in their relational activities with other human beings and are often (but not mostly) detrimental to socialization.

No way. Think about the invention of the telephone, and someone asking "Does the telephone corrupt natural human communication, which is face to face? Is the telephone or is the telegraph undermining humanity???"

Maybe. All I know is that digital communication is great for people with social anxiety like me to abstain from the stresses and awkward silences of personal interaction and still be able to communicate with others.

In my opinion, this is a question that side-steps the core issue. I would re-phrase it as:

Have we ever truly learned how to relate to one another as humans?

The ongoing avoidance of simply acknowledging one another as humans and insisting that all aspects of our living do the same is the problem, not any one of the many and specific ways in which this issue continues to manifest itself in the world.

We cannot lose touch with something we have never truly had.

Digital communication is enhancing our communication with those we "choose" to communicate with. But how many times a day are we so busy talking with someone on the phone and failing to communicate with the people sitting right in front of us? There is a time and a place to digitally communicate but there is also a time and place to speak to the person right beside you! Carpe diem!

nope. i think it's just a different way to relate to each other. people who are not terribly into digital communication will still be able to meet physically, while those of us (hehe) who have a hard time communicating face-to-face find digital communication a godsend.

now one can communicate with people that perhaps you never would in an analog communication setting. it frees one up to be who they really are, in more ways than you would think. of course people embellish themselves or lie, but i think those people would do it no matter whether it was in real life or digital.

No we still talk just in a differnet way then we used to. It helps us actually since we talk on the phone,online and in person.

One of the shortcomings of digital communication is that it can be anonymous and impersonal, and even make people feel isolated from one another.

But that doesn't mean technology is to blame for the disconnection of the masses. Technology demands responsibility. Corporations and institutions have abused that responsibility by using new media to push consumerism, fear, slavery, and ignorance, all of which hinder our ability to participate fully in society. If we don't question it.

One of the really promising things about this site is it provides a free and open forum to share our views, re-evaluate them, consider alternative views, and discover common ground!