>I find this argument stupid and disingenuous. Technology exists to reduce or eliminate labor. If you're pro technology only until it makes you, the human, redu

>I find this argument stupid and disingenuous. Technology exists to reduce or eliminate labor. If you're pro technology only until it makes you, the human, redundant, you're anti-technology. This smells like the "Yet you participate in society, curious!" comic. Is this just for upvotes' sake? "Job market relevancy" during George IV meant returning to the coal mines at best.