I got a new insight into the psyche of the super-rich recently, from an article about the planetary middle finger that is the private jet.
“A big selling point is the ability to minimize what are known as ‘touch points’: the individual microinteractions that take place as we move through the world, like saying hello to a gate agent or asking a fellow passenger to switch seats,” New York magazine wrote.
“When you fly commercial, there are more than 700 touch points,” Alexandra Price, a brand communications manager at the jet-charter company VistaJet, told the reporter. “When you fly private, it’s just 20.”
It makes being ridiculously rich sound like having very high-end noise canceling headphones, but for your whole life, so that you exist in a bubble of serenity insulated from the grubby taint of “microinteracting” with the public. It is babyish — a sort of bought helplessness — and regal, gliding through life behind a protective cordon that prevents scrofulous peasants from reaching for the hem of your Loro Piana leisurewear.
The idea that this is desirable is quite revealing of how the ultra-wealthy experience the world because all those touch points — being manspreaded upon or kettled in a customs line, trauma-bonding with your neighbors on delayed trains, getting barked at about carry-on fluids or negotiating to remove someone’s bag from your seat — are not necessarily pleasant, but they are salutary, reminding us we are not special. It goes far beyond travel: a “civilian” passage through the world is full of friction rubbing off our sharp edges. I suppose they never get that.
I wonder, too, if this worldview is shaping life for everyone else. Are tech billionaires “helpfully” trying to create a budget version of their human-contact-free existences for us? Because we are losing touch points by the bucketload, and it is awful.
Take banking: the UK lost 40 percent of its bank branches from 2012 to last year and the few we still have are a special kind of consumer purgatory, full of lamenting lost souls. There are people trying to ask questions that fall outside online banking’s perkily unhelpful parameters, people who cannot or do not want to “use the app” or are not online (which is true of 6 percent of UK households, according to Ofcom research from last year).
There are sweaty, confused people like me, maddened by walls of bleeping machines. Amid us stands a single employee clutching a tablet, who is not actually allowed to do anything useful.
Soon railway stations could go the same way, with nearly all of England’s 1,007 ticket offices threatened with closure or reduced staffing and opening times within three years. Many people who are neurodiverse, who have physical or learning disabilities, or are elderly or offline depend on ticket offices for information, cash transactions and safe assistance at a known place; without them travel might become impossible. As one blind rail user explained to the BBC, her guide dog knows how to find her local station kiosk, but not a roaming staff member, which is the proposed replacement.
Many more just prefer a face-to-face experience because we do not just need touch points (or “people”, as they are traditionally known); we want them. I work almost entirely from home — thanks, tech billionaires — and rapidly become weird without human interaction, however brief or annoying. Because if you are not in the world, how do you know anything about it?
That is how British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last year ended up trying to buy a can of Coke by vaguely flapping a bank card, baffled by the reality of contactless payment.
When chatbots and helplines failed to resolve a bit of mobile phone absurdity last week, I went to a shop. We made not an iota of progress, but it was a vastly nicer experience to talk to Samantha and her colleagues — covering alternatives to hormone replacement therapy, Alzheimer’s disease, mindfulness and photosensitivity as well as sim issues — than the robots.
There is no way all our human problems can be satisfactorily resolved without other people, but how boring would life be if they could? That is why, although I would love never to change a duvet cover again in my life, I sort of pity the super-rich, with their frictionless passage through the world: it is colorless and flavorless, too.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS