[randomdata]

You, of course, have to be social to some extent with or without an income. Food isn't going to just magically appear in your fridge.

But beyond short bursts of contact (which can often be automated via computer systems), I'm not sure I agree with your premise. I work as a software developer and farmer, and beyond sending an occasional email there is little need to be in contact with anyone in either profession. The former doesn't even require me to leave the house, ever.

I don't consider myself anti-social. I still enjoy social events outside of the workplace. But I see that it could be very easy to essentially disappear, while still making a decent income. They do not seem to be related concepts at all.

[javajosh]

You are completely right, randomdata: there is a minimum threshold of social contact required to maintain oneself, and there is no reason to go beyond that threshold if you don't want to.

My concern for Ken is that his essay describes him as so isolated that he's well below that threshold, and in danger of self-harm through negligence. I don't want that to happen.

I would add that, non-trivially, Ken has expressed a desire to "set the world on fire!" which, in general, has social requirements well above the minimum. (Indeed, the only way to really impact the world in isolation would be to, say, take up a science hobby while working for the Swiss patent office.)