Sorry to respond so late, but I want to get things clarified. > If you use a bit of imagination, robots at the lowest level can free up jobs so that the lower

Sorry to respond so late, but I want to get things clarified. > If you use a bit of imagination, robots at the lowest level can free up jobs so that the lower level say coal worker or walmart worker can be freed to pursue something slightly higher level, which can free up options for jobs at an even higher level, and so on and so forth, until pressure is relieved to allow for more cancer researchers. I don't understand this connection. They are already "free" to do those things but can't for varying socioeconomic reasons or simply because they don't want to. Suddenly losing their job isn't going to free them into making their life better. > Over 600 million people in developing countries have to walk miles to get fresh water. Arguing that automation should be impeded to save jobs is the same as arguing that these people should continue walking so they don't lose their jobs walking for water. I, and I assume most people, are not arguing that. What we are arguing is that when these things happen they are painful and hurt people and that often their lives don't get better. When we, as people in tech, automate out a career we also have a responsibility to help those people whose life we ruined. Collecting water to survive != working at walmart making some goober in a suit a ton of money. Of course when people's basic needs are met better their lives get better. We are taking away their ability to meet their needs (income), not freeing them from those needs to improve their lives.