> I don't see how it's final thesis relates to its argument at all > Because it relies on reducing social connections, i ts , not sustainable" isn't a logical

> I don't see how it's final thesis relates to its argument at all > Because it relies on reducing social connections, i ts , not sustainable" isn't a logical argument. It seems like the author uses a different understanding of the term "social connections between human beings", which might be better described with "physical or virtual effect on actually existing commoners". "Social" as in "society", not as in "relationship"; "connection" as in "relation between things" aka. "is a", "has a", not as "social bonding" or "transmission channel". I think a financial transaction or a contract counts as a social connection here.