Connection in the Modern Age
Written by: Jerrett (25-A6)
Designed by: Vivienne (26-E6)
The rapid advancement of technology has been heralded by some as a significant breakthrough for it has facilitated an unprecedented level of connection. There are genuine gains. Yet, as connectivity grows, there have been concerns that in building faster bridges between people, we may have forgotten what makes crossing them worthwhile. This is because technological progress has led to the erosion of empathy and social interactions - essential traits of humans. Against this backdrop, the perennial debate on whether humans are irreplaceable in the face of technological improvements has been reignited.
What technology cannot replicate is emotional intelligence (EQ). EQ involves recognising, regulating and understanding emotions in oneself and others. To attain EQ, one has to look out for social cues, have contextual understanding of the situation and sufficient knowledge of the person whom they are interacting with. Despite the rapid integration of AI across industries, key human capabilities such as intuition and emotional intelligence continue to highlight significant limitations in AI’s effectiveness.
Today, technology remains constrained as they are still a digital entity and have not manifested in the physical form. Our conversations with artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, such as ChatGPT, are limited to what we want to share with them. While it can simulate responses based on data and patterns, it does not truly understand what it feels like to be happy or sad. AI is unable to assess our emotions and thought processes regarding complex human issues, like relationship breakdowns. AI can mimic empathy but it lacks true emotional awareness, owing to its inability to detect subtleties in our body language. For instance, an individual can detect stress and anxiety within a room and take active efforts to defuse it, such as through a simple “Let me help you”. In doing so, this immediately creates a much more comfortable environment for all parties while facilitating closer ties between people. Deciphering these complex, context-dependent nonverbal interactions requires a level of intuition and experience that current AI systems lack and even as technology advances, AI is unlikely to fully acquire this capacity. As such, people remain invaluable precisely because they possess EQ, a core trait found in all humans built through years of experience. It is, in the fullest sense, human.
Alongside EQ, humans bring wisdom, which is fundamentally distinct from information. Advancements in the digital realm have enabled information to be processed at lightning speed. What once took hours or even days can now be generated in a matter of seconds and minutes. However, the same cannot be said about wisdom. That is forged from people’s critical thinking abilities and the experience they bring to the table. There are reasons for why
till today, trust in technology to make autonomous decisions remains relatively low. Part of this is because it is often unable to consider the long term implications of its decisions or contextualise it to lived experiences. On the other hand, humans can utilise our instincts to drive decisions and our understanding of our societies to justify them. Individuals know that cost-benefit analysis, which technology relies on, does not present the full picture. Instead, we consider the wider context of the decisions being made, such as the socioemotional state, and adapt their responses accordingly. This explains why the most trusted leaders are not those who have the most knowledge but are those who can make wise decisions amid uncertainty. Human experience and judgement remain critical to decision-making because AI cannot reliably distinguish good ideas from mediocre ones and lacks the foresight in making judgement calls. As technology continues to advance, humans should not compare themselves against machine standards like efficiency and output. Instead, we have to anchor ourselves in the wisdom that makes us distinctly human so that human intelligence is not diminished but deepened.
It is tempting, in an age of digital convenience, to treat human connection as an afterthought. However, doing so would be a serious mistake
Human connection remains vital to facilitating good relationships between states. Ultimately, there has to be that construction of interpersonal ties and that familial sense between nations which technology, for all of its aid to connectivity, cannot achieve. This can only be done through face to face interactions, where people can find common ground and have genuine conversations. Computer-mediated communications can sustain relationships but they rarely start one. The human connectivity engendered by summits and student exchanges builds are vital in shaping positive public opinions between nations, fostering mutual understanding, soft-power influence and long-term goodwill. More broadly, the goodwill built through shared experiences can influence bilateral relations and form alliances that last a lifetime. The same logic applies to interpersonal relationships as well, for people to maintain ties voluntarily, the warmth has to come from somewhere. Here, it comes from the people.
Moreover, with such varied diversity across the international state, misunderstandings are bound to occur. This is visible in periods of strained ties between different countries of the UN, such as the US and a multitude of nations including Iran and China. The capacity to resolve these misunderstandings then hinge on human connection. Technology can never
negotiate a genuine reconciliation. During these times, we look towards discerning leaders who bring with them their wisdom. As former UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld observed, a lasting solution to conflict can only be found when one has learned to see the other objectively while experiencing their difficulties subjectively. We need leaders who can offer apologies and compromise over certain issues while standing firm on others. These acts of empathy remain at the heart of enabling friendly ties between nations and allows greater understanding of opposing viewpoints. Without this, tensions remain and states drift apart. Hence, human connection remains indispensable in our ever evolving world where history has left grievances alongside achievements. The significance of compromise in diplomacy becomes evident when we consider the magnitude of potential conflicts that has been averted through it, and behind every such compromise stands not a machine, but a person willing to understand, to yield and to reach across that divide.
As technology continues to develop, we will see it handle information more efficiently. Throughout this process, it will reveal what information alone cannot do, thereby reinforcing our humanity. Technology cannot grieve with us, celebrate with us or choose to forgive. It cannot make decisions based on empathy over efficiency. But, humans can. Therefore, we must continue to make attempts to master technology and not enslave ourselves to it.
Alawamleh, Mohammad, Natalie Shammas, Kamal Alawamleh, and Loiy Bani Ismail. “Examining the Limitations of AI in Business and the Need for Human Insights Using Interpretive Structural Modelling - Sciencedirect.” ScienceDirect, 2024. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S219985312400132X.
Cook, Robert. “Decoding the Divide: 6 Reasons Why Ai Isn’t Ei.” True Colors Intl., January 5, 2024. https://www.truecolorsintl.com/tciblog/decoding-the-divide-five-reasons-why-ai-isnt-ei.
Burningham, Jeff. “AI Is Making Productivity Obsolete. The Leaders Who Thrive Next Will Have Something Machines Can’t Touch.” Fortune, March 17, 2026. https://fortune.com/2026/03/17/ai-productivity-wisdom-leadership/.
Inklyn. “Ai Limitations: Why Ai Still Cannot Replace Human Judgment.” Medium, 2025. https://medium.com/@inklyneastwood/ai-limitations-why-ai-still-cannot-replace-human-judgment-60ece0c9104e.
Melendez, Steven. “Ai Won’t Make the Call: Why Human Judgment Still Drives Innovation: Institute for Business in Global Society.” Harvard Business School, September 2025. https://www.hbs.edu/bigs/artificial-intelligence-human-jugment-drives-innovation.
Riegelsberger, Jens, M Angela Sasse, and John D McCarthy. “The Researcher’s Dilemma: Evaluating Trust in Computer-Mediated Communication.” ScienceDirect, June 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00042-9.
Bandura, Romina, and Mirka Martel. “The Power of Educational Exchanges in Strengthening U.S.-Lac Relations.” CSIS, 2025. https://www.csis.org/analysis/power-educational-exchanges-strengthening-us-lac-relations.
Lsatullo. “How Empathy Shapes Outcomes of Diplomatic Negotiations.” Diplo Learning Corner, June 20, 2018. https://diplolearn.org/2018/06/20/how-empathy-shapes-outcomes-of-diplomatic-negotiations/.
Comments