I can see you understand the criticism being made, and I can see you're dismissing it, but I don't see why. You've accurately described mechanisms at play, but

I can see you understand the criticism being made, and I can see you're dismissing it, but I don't see why. You've accurately described mechanisms at play, but you don't justify them. Why should VCs continue to "capture the value" of our leisure time and drive it towards zero? I understand that makes them lots of money, but why is that a good way to run society? Consider the same reasoning in a different scenario: I'm so tired of people complaining about their cancer. Yeah, your cells divide. When they divide the way they're intended to, you live a normal life. When they divide out of control, your health suffers. Thems the breaks. I think we can all agree this argument is ridiculous. It describes the mechanism at work, acknowledges the harm that's taking place, but ultimately the argument here is "if we have an explanation for what's happening, then it isn't a problem, it's a fact of life." Clearly that's not so - just because we understand cancer, doesn't mean we accept it. Help me understand why your argument is different?