have been developing substitutes for live interaction since the invention of smoke signals.
The valid point in that statement is that electronic communication can't
-- and shouldn't --
completely replace live human interaction. A case in
point: The
Wall Street Journal(Endnote #13) reports on a group of managers who
agreed to start using email less. Why? They found that because they
solved most of their easy problems via email, they only met when they
had to deal with something really nasty, which led to very unpleasant
meetings. They agreed to meet more regularly (although still less frequently than they did before the advent of email) so as to stay on better
terms with each other.
Email can be a great tool for dealing with people you can't stand in person. I once had to work with an incredibly nervous man whose tension
was contagious. Rather than having him call me up at all hours of the
day, we agreed to communicate by email. I sent him a project update
every day or so, and if I left any of his questions unanswered, he would
ask them by return email. I would try to reply by the end of the next
day. I also tried to send him my reports right before I went home in the
evening, so that if he did decide to follow up with a phone call, I'd be
gone. It worked pretty well.
We still had to meet in person once in a while, though. You can't have
everything.