(this is a slightly edited and updated version of a post from The Future of Work blog. The original version is here.

First, look at this chart  showing the shift from “real” interaction to reliance on electronic media (it comes directly from the article that stimulated this post – Well Connected? The Biological Implications of Social Networking“)

Now, I am as enthusiastic about social networking technologies and their ability to connect us with friends and colleagues all over the planet as the next person, but Marc Van Eeckhoudt just sent me the article that includes that chart.

It’s just been published in Biologist, a British magazine: “Well Connected? The Biological Implications of Social Networking.”

The core message in the article: more and more people are becoming “loners,” and that’s really dangerous for their health. Unfortunately it is not clear from this article whether or not people who rely primarily on electronic means of communication can overcome those health risks.

I’m really not sure after reading the article if collaborative technologies are a way to overcome social isolation, or if they may in fact be a primary cause of it.

I believe that for these researchers “social interaction” equates to face-to-face.

Regardless, the growth in the use of electronic media is completely consistent with our own recent research tracking the phenomenal rise in the use of collaborative technologies within organizational settings (“Social Networking is For Real“). And of course there are plenty of other studies out there showing the same thing.

Now I’m not at all opposed to social networking/communications technologies. In fact, I’m a big advocate of the way they enable collaboration at a distance and help us stay in touch with distant friends and relatives.

However, if you’re depending on technology as your primary means of communication, you may be in trouble. Just look at the evidence:

Whether in or out of the home, more people of all ages in the UK are physically and socially disengaged from the people around them because they are wearing earphones, talking or texting on a mobile telephone, or using a laptop or Blackberry. An increasing number of deaths caused by the wearers of MP3 players inadvertently stepping into oncoming traffic has led to Senatorial proposals for a New York State ‘distracted walking bill’ to outlaw the use of mobile phones, handheld emailing devices such as Blackberries and video games while crossing a road. [emphasis added]

[]

[Researchers] now believe that [there is a] greater risk of inflammatory disease and adverse health outcomes in individuals who experience high levels of subjective social isolation

[]

Loneliness is being cited as causing low-grade peripheral inflammation which, in turn, is linked to inflammatory diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and autoimmune disorders (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis, lupus).

[]

Lack of social connection or loneliness is also associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

[]

Loneliness is found to be a unique predictor of age-related differences in systolic blood pressure.

[]

. . . susceptibility to colds decreased in a dose-response manner: people with the most types of social bonds were the least susceptible, while those with one to three types of social relationships were over four times more likely to develop a cold than those people with six or more types.

[]

Interestingly, a series of studies have continued to find a significant reduction in mortality, independent of confounding variables, in people who attend weekly religious services. However, simply showing up at church to ‘warm the pew’ may not be sufficient, as it is increasingly suggested that it is the underlying social interaction and connection amongst those who attend that influence mortality.

Finally, consider this:

A decade ago, a detailed classic study of 73 families who used the internet for communication, The Internet Paradox, concluded that greater use of the internet was associated with declines in communication between family members in the house, declines in the size of their social circle, and increases in their levels of depression and loneliness.

Keep in mind, however, that the Internet Paradox study was published in 1998, meaning it completely preceded Web 2.0 and all the active communication tools at our disposal today (eg, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, instant messaging, wiki’s, even blogs). In fact, the authors of the original study also published a follow-up report in 2001 (Internet Paradox Revisited) that was much more optimistic about how the Internet actually can increase social interaction (albeit, of course, at a distance, not face-to-face).

The Biologist article concludes this way:

Presiding over a growing body of evidence, we should now explain the true meaning of the term ‘social networking’. At a time of economic recession our social capital may ultimately prove to be our most valuable asset.

I fully agree. But I have to conclude that the authors haven’t really figured out the differences, if there are any, between face-to-face and electronically-mediated social networking. I actually think there may be consequences in both directions.

I remain a big fan of local community and the sense of fellowship and well-being that comes from being “around” fellow human beings (in spite of the current economic downturn, people are still getting together – perhaps even more than ever – and many are even continuing to travel to attend professional meetings in spite of corporate travel limitations).

Webinars, teleconferences, and all those other means of social networking are incredibly useful substitutes for “being there.” But there’s still something awfully powerful about “pressing the flesh.”

I’ll close with a story I’ve told before (which I first heard from David Isaacs). The English word “company” is derived from the Italian (and, I suppose, Latin) “con pane,” which literally means “with bread.” It’s the way we talk about having “company” over for dinner – to break bread together. So a “corporate” company originally referred to a group of close friends or acquaintances who literally worked together – in the same place, at the same time.

Clearly, that meaning has been stretched today beyond recognition. But we’re still social animals, and whether we “social network” in person or electronically, the most important thing is that we do it.