UrRong indeed! While the retort makes valid points, the concept of using a signature as the legally binding marker of one's attestation to a thing is not as universally accepted as the retort suggests. After all, in certain cultures, something as simple as a thumbprint is used in lieu of a signature. Moreover, when it comes to legal matters, it is often more practical and advantageous to use multiple forms of identification. Requiring a blood sample, as I initially suggested, adds one more layer of security and privacy to the process.
Furthermore, the notion that signatures are more socially acceptable and less intrusive than alternatives such as blood is a bit of an exaggeration. A signature is just as intrusive as a blood sample in some contexts. Then there’s the whole concept of “micro-aggressions” which makes it hard for some members of our society to be comfortable with signing documents.
At the end of the day, this is all beside the point. My essay was merely musing on what could have been, in an alternate universe where signatures weren’t considered the norm. For the record, in that universe, signing your lease agreement with a pin and some blood would have been totally UrRong and completely understandable.