[ksdale]

I interpreted that more as, the mere fact that a technology exists will offend some people. Automation that puts people out of a job, for example, offends a lot of people, especially those who will be most directly affected. It doesn’t mean those people don’t deserve compassion and assistance, but their taking offense shouldn’t prevent someone from working on automation (in my opinion). I think that goes for a lot of technologies.

And some not technologies. I’m a lawyer and recently there has been movement toward letting people who aren’t lawyers do things that are traditionally considered the practice of law, like creating and filing certain legal documents. Most of the documents are ones that are already done almost exclusively by paralegals and secretaries, but I regularly see articles arguing for restricting this couched in the language of protecting people from malpractice. It seems to me to be a case of lawyers who worked hard for their status being offended by change that would lower the cost of legal services and their status. I don’t think their offense should be taken into account, rather I think we should make changes to benefit people who currently can’t afford legal services.

I also don’t personally think there is any shame in spending your life on something that becomes an anachronism, so I don’t think much of the offense taking at new technology is warranted. Once upon a time, 90-something% of people were farmers, after all...