It is a nice cartoon, and I very much approve of the concept, but it's overly simplistic when you have competing interests. It still leaves me with the "Who is "we"?" question - someone needs to decide what balance of competing interests is "fair".
To stretch the analogy of the cartoon further - would the carpenter whose livelihood revolved around making and selling the crates for people to stand on think that suddenly making them redundant was "fair"? How would the person who struggles to stand for a long period, and perhaps would struggle to carry a seat in, feel about the boxes s/he always sat on being taken away?
To look at a more real-world situation - disabled access to all things there is abled-bodied access to would be a good thing, preserving historical monuments and places of outstanding national beauty is also a good thing. I don't think many people whould disagree with either statement in general.
Preserving things necessarily includes not building ramps and lifts all over them in many cases. The two "good things" are in competition. However good remote viewing tech gets, it's unlikely to psychologically ever be the same as being there.
Unless you can make everyone have identical levels of physical ability (i.e. everything equally accessible to everyone, ignoring money issues), access will always be harder for some people than others. Someone has to decide where the "fair" balance lies.
no subject
To stretch the analogy of the cartoon further - would the carpenter whose livelihood revolved around making and selling the crates for people to stand on think that suddenly making them redundant was "fair"? How would the person who struggles to stand for a long period, and perhaps would struggle to carry a seat in, feel about the boxes s/he always sat on being taken away?
To look at a more real-world situation - disabled access to all things there is abled-bodied access to would be a good thing, preserving historical monuments and places of outstanding national beauty is also a good thing. I don't think many people whould disagree with either statement in general.
Preserving things necessarily includes not building ramps and lifts all over them in many cases. The two "good things" are in competition. However good remote viewing tech gets, it's unlikely to psychologically ever be the same as being there.
Unless you can make everyone have identical levels of physical ability (i.e. everything equally accessible to everyone, ignoring money issues), access will always be harder for some people than others. Someone has to decide where the "fair" balance lies.