You might be right, or your view might lead to social collapse. Society has been functioning for millenia; it's not clear that can work without people talking to each other. For an HN-pertinent example: If no one wanted to put together a company, would anyone have a job? Can computers really mediate all human interaction? If so, why are social connections so important in building a successful tech company?
Conversely, society has been function for millennia, despite all the crazy things that humans have done before - as we change, it adapts.
In fact, who is to say that the present typical amount of social interaction is optimal or even generally desirable? It's a function of our society and its tech today, it didn't come up on stone tablets from the heaven.
You might be right! It is, indeed, possible that letting people choose to talk to one another instead of coercing them into it may lead to the destruction of society.
But, consider. If letting people talk to one another - or not - as they choose rather than as some would-be society-engineer decides leads to social collapse, what will actually be lost? Is so fragile a system really worth preserving? I submit that it may not be.
Personally, I don't require that computers mediate all human interaction. I do rather like having a choice, though.
The difference might be that you could enjoy your conversations and outings with your coworkers, but less so when you’re grabbing groceries at a supermarket.
But... what if I want that? What if I don't want to be coerced into social interaction, every day, just so I get get my basic physical needs met? What if I want to engage with society and humans on my terms, rather than on yours?
Who gets to decide? I welcome this because it gives me another choice. It moves me one step further away from the coerced-social-interaction experient you envision as heavenly and towards a world where I get to make one more of the choices that matters to me.