[Earw0rm]

They're a battle-tested technology but, like fossil fuels or pesticides, come at a price.

We should aim to take a balanced, complete and holistic view of what that price has looked like, and looks like today.

In general terms it optimises for the middle of various bell-curves, at considerable disbenefit for those towards the edges of the distribution. Essentially if you naturally conform to its proposed life-model, you'll broadly have a fairly good time, and if you don't, you won't.

It's OK to recognise the pros and the cons as part of the assessment, in a quest for a more fulfilling and long-term-sustainable model for society and human existence. I'm not sure many have the open-mindedness and maturity to participate, though.