No.
Lets ask the influencers, the twitch celebs, the podcasters id they would prefer to shovel horse crap, or play with their e-device all day.
And to be completely fair, the manufacturing jobs may be gone because elected leaders were told it was OK export the vast majority of those jobs (millions) abroad, where labor doesn't have govt benefits or red tape. This makes new jobs go to foreigners instead of staying stateside.
So, we all save a few pennies on each item made in china and sold on Amazon, at the price of nuking all US craftsmanship and artisans.
The job elimination can mean people who spent decades honing a craft and no longer have any realistic job opportunities at a remotely equivalent pay level, and have no path into a new career because they're now decades behind (or too old to realistically train up a new skill if they're a physical laborer). Sure, it's progress, but it's weird to imply that all the labor that's being eliminated lacks value or artistry.
And the new jobs are frequently things like acting as a babysitter for an AI or sitting in a call center pressing buttons. Certainly, this is also "work", but if we're comparing it to shoveling horse manure I wouldn't necessarily consider it elevated much even if it's more comfortable.
That reads like the premise of a joke: “What’s the difference between a manure cleaner and a social media influencer? The former reduces the amount of shit in your life, the latter adds to it”.
Preferences aside, if we take into account both physical and mental damage, I wonder which job is more harmful. Not only to the practitioner, but society in general. I’m not advocating for bringing back the job of horse manure cleaner, but I don’t think social media influencer should be a job either.
You made a good point regarding exporting jobs.
False dichotomy. Not every modern-day twitch celeb would be shoveling manure. And another false dichotomy: I was not arguing for either NOW or THE TIME before cars. And I wonder how many people would trade their modern influence job for shoveling manure in return for living in an area with cleaner air. Also, ask the question again to people living NEXT to tire factories that stink and whose only job is collecting garbage NOW like bottles from trash because they don't have enough education to get a proper job.
Besides, I am one of those "influencers" -- not exactly on Twitch, but a full-time content creator. And I WOULD go back to those times.
Why is it that every time I bring up the dangers of technology, some techie HAS to bring up cars versus manure shovelers, as if that settles every argument about the dangers of technology? Rather intellectually stifled, I feel. And rejecting technology doesn't mean going back to the way things WERE; rather it means making changes NOW to go to a NEW future that has less technology.
I do, the Amish do, and quite a few other people against technology DO want less. In fact, even ordinary people (non-techies) often tell me technology is too entrenched. What about those people ditching smartphones for dumphones. I don't think that tech improves things and I DO want less.
I can't find the article, but it said something around the lines of "each Microsoft Word user thinks that there are too many functionalities, and wants less".
His remark is that each user uses different functionalities, so one can't reduce a product's functionality in a way that satisfies everybody.
Everybody would sure love to have a smartphone tailored 100% to their usage, but in real world, either they accept smartphones in toto, or they just use a brick. In generalized form, the same concept applies to tech.
But back to the primary: is it really tech that some want less of, or the negative effects caused by its overuse/abuse? For example, IIUC the Amish are against modern tech primarily because it's changing their communities in ways they aren't fond of. But they still use tech that's not so modern, such as buggies (as opposed to just riding horses), manual plows for farming, saws and hammers for building, etc. Can anyone even go less than that? And that relative "less" only moves forward over time.
I doubt you want much dark in a neighborhood though, particularly if there are unsavory elements potentially roaming around. A sliver of light may be the difference between someone being attacked or a home robbed.
