A variant of this used to be called Time and Motion, also known as Taylorism, and is based on the uncomfortable assumption that left to their own devices humans are rather stupid and need to be told what to do. In detail.
There are two elements to this. One is the idea that there's an executive class which is born (or at least educated) to rule, and the other is the not-quite-identical observation that many people lack genuine independent agency, either by nature or because they lack the political/managerial leverage needed to make productive changes.
The personal part of the "digital revolution" was supposed to be a way for people to explore independence, agency, and creativity. It actually turned into yet another scheme by which those who believe they're born to rule can use algorithmic machinery to farm and control the economic and political activity of everyone else (input and output), without the stickiness and inertia of traditional long-term employment. Which was itself another form of farming and control, but with hard-fought humane benefits.
This is a political problem, not a technological problem. It can only be solved with technology where the political situation allows it.
For now it seems to be true that most humans are rule-takers and mimics, not creative innovators or strategic thinkers. I have no idea if that's a genetic limitation or an educational one. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if personal computing had gone in the direction it was originally supposed to, and education had followed.
I know it seems bleak, but one thing to remember is that no one planned this. There's no omnipotent overlord whose scheme to screen-addict/rent-enslave the human race is finally coming to fruition. Things like Dynamicland, the early retirement people, and yes, HN, are all bright lights in the dark. It's not as immediately profitable to uplift as it is to exploit, but there's no one stopping you from teaching some neighborhood kids how to write a browser extension, or personal finance. More importantly, there's no one stopping them from learning if they want to.
Things aren't perfect, but there are opportunities and to spare for those looking.
There are two elements to this. One is the idea that there's an executive class which is born (or at least educated) to rule, and the other is the not-quite-identical observation that many people lack genuine independent agency, either by nature or because they lack the political/managerial leverage needed to make productive changes.
The personal part of the "digital revolution" was supposed to be a way for people to explore independence, agency, and creativity. It actually turned into yet another scheme by which those who believe they're born to rule can use algorithmic machinery to farm and control the economic and political activity of everyone else (input and output), without the stickiness and inertia of traditional long-term employment. Which was itself another form of farming and control, but with hard-fought humane benefits.
This is a political problem, not a technological problem. It can only be solved with technology where the political situation allows it.
For now it seems to be true that most humans are rule-takers and mimics, not creative innovators or strategic thinkers. I have no idea if that's a genetic limitation or an educational one. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if personal computing had gone in the direction it was originally supposed to, and education had followed.