The check's in the e-mail.

The little voice inside the radio box just told me that 18% of people would feel something was missing, something fundamental and necessary would be missing from life, if they couldn't check their e-mail. That just screams ignorance to me. That number should be a lot higher than 18%.That's not me being a technophile. That's me being a realist. How would you feel if you didn't get US mail anymore? Bills didn't come. Invitations to weddings and family reunions. Holiday cards, catalogs, report cards, junk mail and pay check receipts. You'd either feel like you were cut off or you'd be a paranoid shut-in who didn't get any of those things anyway. Now? Now some people get that in their e-mail. Why should that be less of a connection to the world than paper? It's faster, it's more pervasive. Bills come over it. Junk mail. Invitations. And only 18% of people think that having that cut off would be pulling a serious part of their life's communication away? Or are only 18% admitting it?I know not everyone uses e-mail to that degree. But its taken over a large portion of casual contact between people who don't see each other daily or weekly. It's the new mail. Not a gimmick, not a supplement. For a lot of communication it has replaced mail. And that's not a complaint or a sales pitch. It's what's going on. Should e-mail be regarded more warily than other types of innovation? It's a new tool so why are people so obsessed with putting it in a basket labeled “silly”, “addiction” or “fad”. Why is it an addiction when there are other tools that we are so used to and couldn't live without that aren't considered addictions to be broken? Cars. Go commute to your job without your car. It's not a right. Your drivers license is a privileged that can be taken away. Are you addicted to your car? Or try applying to a job without a telephone number. The telephone is a service you pay for. It's not provided as a right by the government. Are you addicted to having a phone number? I mean, it's just technology so it can't be needed. It can't be a necessity.See the hypocrisy? I do. Why is it that people who use the internet on a daily basis aren't lauded as being on top of responding to people. Why aren't they accused of being addicted to attention and communication? They're told they are addicted to the internet itself. There are people who need to just surf. They do it as a casual activity but need it to feel complete. It's close to a low level of OCD, just something casual and simple to complete their day. But e-mail? People, if you're responding on a daily basis to e-mail you're fitting your communication in with other people's schedules. That's something that should be applauded. And why do media seem so intent on making the tool of communication something that should be regarded with a wary eye? Television, radio,phone, mail, even news weeklies are all forms of... communication. Is it just a fear of the new? A retaliation against anything that comes along as different? A sort of technological xenophobia?Most likely yes. Just because it's a newer form of getting in touch with people doesn't mean it's not important. I think that's judged by usage. I mean, the phone wasn't intended to be in every house and yet here it is, usually at least one in every house and soon in every pocket. E-mail? Well, that was intended to somewhat supplement standard mail, now called snail mail (or was in my day). If you define addiction as “being considered necessary to function” then you have a very small and narrow view of the world. There are so many things in that definition that no one thinks of as an addiction. Transportation. Food. Water. Education. Do we think that anyone who strives to put any of those into their day has a problem? How about responding to people. How about contact and timely responses. That's not addiction. That's functioning in life. Just because e-mail is the newest guy at work doesn't mean he's still the new guy. He's been around long enough to have tenure. If you don't invite him to the next office party then you're a dick.