Analogies are useful because they are analogous, not because they perfectly mirror the concept beig analogized. The argument seems to he whether we are at that

Analogies are useful because they are analogous, not because they perfectly mirror the concept beig analogized. The argument seems to he whether we are at that point of technological ubiquity where being generally algorate is a benefit to society. However, I believe I agree with you that technology is not at that point. (literacy, numeracy, and "algorithmacy"[?] are equally beneficial to society - technology is not the reason for this though) If technology becomes ubiquitous enough around the world (perhaps a touch device for 80% of the world?), many someones will be making the devices more accessible to the less algorate and you're back to "who needs to be algorate?" I don't see technology as the drive to make people more algorate.