> The suggestion that violence may be necessary does not strengthen your argument, it exposes its weakness.

I am not at all suggesting it is necessary; you are projecting that onto me. I am merely observing that it might happen. Already is happening.

> Your argument relies upon the unspoken inference that pre-industrial agricultural life was somehow a better life that was diminished by progress.

Well for several generations life expectancy actually fell, working hours increased, general health worsened, child and infant mortality worsened. It took until the 1900s for those measures to improve. Child labour became an outsized evil until work and education reforms happened really only 140 years ago.

Do you not understand that industrial work was not less exhausting until workers rights movements did something about it? Not at all less dangerous? Not at all less dirty, less violent, better paid, more free, more secure?

For the first century or so, the industrial revolution (and the second agricultural revolution) made the average worker's life worse — less stable, less constant, fewer rights, a destruction of traditions and social cohesion.

The social progress you argue that technology drove, it drove as largely a negative influence. Did we get modern medicine after two hundred years or so? Of course. Was there industrial progress? Of course. But social progress happened as a result of the labour organisation of people to stop their lives being made radically worse by a class of new extremely rich capitalists. Productivity gains are not social progress, nor are they a proxy for it.

> Perhaps you don't like that you toil away in an air-conditioned office writing video game code, for a salary that you wish was higher, because you dread the cost of your next smartphone purchase.

This is childish straw man projection of which you should be a bit ashamed, IMO. That is the kindest thing I can say of it.