Cyberhood vs. Neighborhood

This article was a real mind tease. Barlow makes an excellent presentation for his revealing argument. He does not try to persuade the reader to one side or the other. Rather he finds a medium in which the inevitable will happen and it is best to approach it with an open mind rather than resist. I have so many comments to make towards this essay it could take me days. I will try to keep this response short and concise.
In the beginning of the article, Barlow describes the change in America's rural and suburban population patterns with the decline in farming and the increase of industry. I enjoyed his comment about "the combination of television and suburban population patterns" being "simply toxic to the soul" (344). I find it humorous that this article was written in the mid 90's and I would love to see a follow up to this article written present day, because this poison has not only infected the vast majority of the US population, it controls it. A huge part of the argument here is that the progression of technology, coupled with the changes in American society severely altered the concept of and the physical community itself.
I really enjoyed reading about Barlow's depictions of Deadheads. His definition of them is really cool to someone like myself who is too young to have seen the Dead with Jerry but loves every aspect of the lifestyle and values which they embodied. In a way, the Deadhead community was an extreme example of a community, with all of the necessary qualities but enhanced so much more. One issue that I do have with this part of the article though is when Barlow talks about encountering Deadheads online in 1987. I am not generalizing, but I am curious to know what percentage of the entire population of Deadheads were involved with the Internet at this time. While most of them were following the band, how many were really sitting at home on their computers? I understand that as a more present day concept this is more prevalent but it was the first question that entered my mind after reading that.
Further along in the article I really liked the use of the word prana when describing the virtual world, it connects a community together, but lacks spirit. It is simply text with no soul behind it. It is lacking in the Deadhead community online because they are simply beings, with only words. It is not the lack of heart though, it is the fact that the online community is merely a transcript of the true communal experience. If my understanding is right, the physical act of being together in a peaceful and loving community is much easier and more meaningful if it is done in person as opposed to online.
The main point of the article amazes me. Barlow describes the decline in the quality of life in the physical community and makes a valid point as to the endless possibilities that virtual communities hold. His argument is structured in a very insightful way. He supports the body of the essay with his conclusion, exploring the benefits of both different types of communities. In the conclusion, he describes a way to accept both communities while keeping an open mind and looking logically toward the future. He doesn't support the deterioration of the physical community and its interactions but instead pushes for a focus elsewhere. Basically if things are going down the tubes it might be worth giving the new frontier a try.
So my question to this whole article (which I thoroughly enjoyed) is...even if we accept all of this virtual reality with open minds and open hearts, how can it benefit human connection, that which is so coveted by those who value peace, love and the world around them? How can we minimize something so precious to a few channels of connection over the Internet?
And one last note...I appreciate and support online communities, especially when they work to support and benefit all those around. However I find it difficult to wrap my mind around something that should be so physical and personal being altered into a virtual experience.