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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS