This was a rhetorical question to highlight the ridiculousness of using this statement as justification for anything. You can state it however many times you want, it does not change reality.

Just as well, we would not need legs if only the reality was that we live in the water. Turns out, the reality is that we live on land and we need legs. The right way is to adapt humans to living in water first, and then legs would have been gone away through evolution. The wrong way is to cut off people’s legs[0].

> I'm guessing that you say that because you enjoy your job

Let’s stick to the point, not to what you imagine about me.

If somebody hates their job, taking away their source of income is extremely harmful (clearly they would have quit already if they didn’t absolutely need money). If somebody loves their job, taking away what gives their life meaning is extremely harmful.

> It's happening, so we had better figure out how to wrap our small brains around it.

Not at all. For it to start happening, those who are in charge of robot job replacement would have to stop plugging their ears and shouting whenever someone talks about the issues it causes.

I feel like we are talking past each other, I am done trying to rephrase my point.

[0] To make things obvious… Making sure jobs are not vital for human existence is evolving humans to live in water. Replacing jobs with robots is cutting off people’s legs.