Love, Family And AI: Bridging The Gap Between Human Connection And Technology

With all these advancements, many unfolding faster than our brains can truly process,  I find myself unable to avoid one essential topic: love and human connection.

As rapid technological change, shifting demographics and evolving social values reshape our world, the very foundations of love, family and community are being reconsidered.

Long-held assumptions about the nuclear family and how we bond are now being viewed through new lenses: science, sociology and lived experience. But what troubles me most is the growing gap between what science tells us about human connection and the way technology, especially artificial intelligence, is being developed.

In this article, I draw on the work of three pioneering female researchers, Dr. Anna Machin, Dr. Helen Fisher, and Dr. Julianne Holt-Lunstad, while reflecting on my own journey.

Together, I hope we can explore how love, family, AI and population trends intersect. And crucially, I want to examine why the gap between this research and the male-dominated world of AI development matters so much for our future.

What Female Researchers Have Revealed About Love and Connection

Dr. Anna Machin, an evolutionary anthropologist, reminds us that love is far more than a fleeting emotion; it’s a survival mechanism. Through oxytocin, dopamine, endorphins and other neurochemicals, human connection binds us together. These chemicals evolved to secure bonds between partners, parents, and offspring, enabling cooperation and protection.

Dr. Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist, maps out three brain systems that shape our relationships: lust, the drive for sex; romantic love, the intense focus on a particular partner; and attachment, the bond that supports long-term cooperation. Fisher’s research explains why love can feel so conflicting; these systems evolved to meet different reproductive challenges and don’t always align.

Dr. Julianne Holt-Lunstad, a neuroscientist and psychologist, demonstrates through her meta-analyses that connection is as crucial to survival as food, water or air. Strong social ties reduce mortality risk on par with quitting smoking, while isolation increases health risks comparable to obesity or chronic disease.

Together, their research makes one thing clear: connection is not optional. It is fundamental to our survival and well-being.

The Missing Link: How AI Development Neglects Love Science

In stark contrast, AI development, still largely shaped by male researchers, engineers and investors focuses on efficiency, automation, prediction and scale. The emotional needs at the heart of human well-being are often sidelined.

Where male pioneers in AI, from Alan Turing onward, have explored emotion, their focus has been:

• Can AI simulate or mimic human emotion?
• Can machines pass as human through emotional imitation?

What seems glaringly absent is this more human-centred question:

• How can AI protect or strengthen the real connections that humans depend on for survival and flourishing?
  
  
• How can AI design honour the deep biological and social needs revealed by love science?

We already see the risks of this neglect:

• Social media algorithms, designed without regard for our neurochemistry of bonding, amplify division, envy and isolation rather than connection.

• AI companions and chatbots simulate empathy but can’t deliver the biochemical rewards, like oxytocin and beta-endorphin, that come only from human connection.

When AI development ignores what science tells us about love and bonding, it risks weakening the very relationships that keep us healthy and whole.

My Story: Parenting, Migration and the Question of AI

I don’t approach these questions as an observer. I lived them. I married young, full of hope and began building what many consider the “typical” family. We welcomed two children and dreamed of raising them together, supported by extended family and community.

But life took an unexpected turn. Migration to a new country reshaped everything. The networks I had counted on, grandparents, cousins, friends, fell away. Suddenly, we were raising our children largely on our own while balancing the demands of work, survival and parenting. The task felt overwhelming at times. There were moments of pride and joy, but also exhaustion and loneliness.

Now, as I reflect on those years, I do wonder: Could AI have helped? Would I have welcomed an AI tutor to lighten the load of homework support? An AI companion to ease my children’s loneliness during my late shifts?

Perhaps. But I also know that no machine could have replaced the small but vital moments: a shared laugh, a warm embrace, a knowing glance that said: “I see you”. These moments, the ones Dr. Machin and Dr. Fisher describe, are where love lives and no AI can truly stand in their place.

The danger is that in seeking help, we mistake simulation for substance and drift further from what makes us human.

The Future We Need: A Vision for Human-Centred AI

If AI is to serve humanity rather than undermine it, we need to bridge the gap between love science and technology design. This means:

• Embedding insights from researchers like Machin, Fisher and Holt-Lunstad into the heart of AI development.
• Asking not how AI can mimic love, but how AI can support the relationships that define us.
• Challenging the male-dominated, efficiency-driven culture of tech to prioritise human flourishing over mere performance.

There is potential. AI can assist in elder care, education and healthcare, areas where human networks have frayed or resources are stretched. But it must complement, not compete with, real human connection.

Overpopulation, Underpopulation and Family in a Changing World

There’s another layer to this conversation: population dynamics. We live in a time of tension between fears of overpopulation, the idea that too many people will exhaust Earth’s resources and concerns about underpopulation, as birth rates fall across much of the world.

Research (e.g., Running, 2012) suggests Earth can sustain about 10 billion people at equitable, resource-conscious standards, but only if we radically rethink consumption and distribution. Meanwhile, in many countries, shrinking families and aging populations raise alarms about future economic stability, care for the elderly and social cohesion.

In this context, the question isn’t just how many people can Earth hold, but what kind of societies are we building?

Will technology help us form resilient communities or isolate us further? Will AI help us care for one another, or replace the human ties we need most?

The Future We Build

My journey as a parent taught me this: it’s not structure that matters most, not tradition, not modernity, but the strength of our bonds. As we navigate demographic shifts and technological change, we don’t have to choose between human and machine, between tradition and innovation. Our task is to blend the best of technology with the irreplaceable power of love, empathy and community.

The work of Machin, Fisher and Holt-Lunstad shows what’s at stake. Now it’s up to us to insist that AI serve humanity’s deepest needs, not just its cleverest ambitions.

Reclaiming Connection in a Tech-Driven World

If this article resonated with you—if you’ve felt the tension between innovation and intimacy and you’re seeking to lead in a way that honours both—then the Brain-Friendly Leadership Certification might be your next step.

This program is designed to strengthen the very qualities our future depends on: relational intelligence, emotional grounding and human-centred decision-making. Especially now, as AI transforms the landscape of work and life, these capacities are not optional—they’re essential.

Explore how you can lead with wisdom, clarity and connection, in a world that needs it more than ever.

Learn more about our upcoming programs here👇

Sources

• Machin, A. (2018). The life of Dad: The making of a modern father. Simon & Schuster.
• Fisher, H. (2004). Why we love: The nature and chemistry of romantic love. Henry Holt and Company.
• Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLOS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
• Running, S. (2012). A measurable planetary boundary for the biosphere. Science, 337(6101), 1458–1459. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1222543
• United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2022). World population prospects 2022. https://population.un.org/wpp/
• Pew Research Centre. (2020). The decline of marriage and the rise of new families. https://www.pewresearch.org/