I would agree with you in general, but at the same time I think there is key nuance of perspective here. "Human friendly rules" can be seen as unwelcome authori

I would agree with you in general, but at the same time I think there is key nuance of perspective here. "Human friendly rules" can be seen as unwelcome authoritarianism in different cultures, or even by different people within the same culture. In other words "human friendly" is an expression of your own personal views and values, which are subjective and well... personal. Let's create an example, which is not all that hypothetical. There seems to be an increasingly large body of evidence indicating that social media is simply a net ill, potentially quite a severe one, on society. Do you begin to censor/prohibit it, or do you allow it to run mostly as it will? In our culture the answer is clear. We value freedom as something in and of itself, even when the outcomes it produces are not desirable. Yet it's certainly not particularly hard to imagine that another culture might see that eliminating these sort of events would be something that would contribute towards a 'healthier' society, even if we remove any notion of government control from however 'healthier' is defined. The actors making decisions in both cases would believe they're acting in a 'human friendly way' yet come to completely different conclusions.