Well I already do that pretty much. I would not recommend it. Social interaction can be very rewarding, sometimes.
I don't agree with your spock like view of emotions. As if they were the enemy of the rational. You can be rational and emotional. They are orthogonal.
I think of emotions are sort of a utility function. They tell you what you want. Rationality just tells you how to get what you want. They complement each other. Without emotions there'd be no point in doing anything.
"Without emotions there'd be no point in doing anything."
This is a mantra supported by the (still) majority of our current society. I presume that people who believe it don't really bother to investigate other beliefs or if there might be another base for "doing anything". To give you a hint, "emotion" and "feeling" are not the same (and "feeling" is more than "sensation"). For example, curiosity made you want to learn about the world around you and logical (mental) stimulation is the expected reason for wanting challenge and accomplishment. Emotions are just another kind of mental stimulation, one that (as I've mentioned before) played out its role and become a liability for far too many.
As a side note, when you'll drop again references in the future, don't make it too hard for your audience to pick them up. As a non-native English speaker it wasn't obvious to me that "spock" is a character (whose name I would have capitalized) instead of a less used word.
I don't agree with your spock like view of emotions. As if they were the enemy of the rational. You can be rational and emotional. They are orthogonal.
I think of emotions are sort of a utility function. They tell you what you want. Rationality just tells you how to get what you want. They complement each other. Without emotions there'd be no point in doing anything.