Now, I would like to imagine the legal case of an accident involving a self driving robo-taxi transporting another robot to a facility (owned by the company).
Maybe they can blame the humans who suffered the accident?
There is this video analysis which, while taking pewdiepie as a major example, it is about the online-gamer-manosphere-trolls pipeline that leads into weird shit:
What tools to to replace math work besides calculator?
Mathematica is one example that solves integrals and do some elementary proof run-down for you.
Granted that it is used mostly by STEM students. But I rarelly see someone totally forbiding the use of Mathematica as learning tool.
If you want a more High-school tool, then geogebra is another great example (and also opensource.
Pretty useful to plot the graphs and help you see what you're getting wrong.
I'm answering just to show that there are indeed mathematical tools used for the inbetween of a full math major and a "paltry peasant" that only needs to compute a good enough function for his problem be it an engineer working beams load, a chemist working enthalpy reactions or an biologist trying to find an EDO that best fits the data of prey/predator in a given ecosystem.
What I think is not that we should "abolish" religion (granted that I know you did not propose that. I'm just extrapolating from "religion is a plague")
I think we should move to exploring different religions without holding any of them as superior to the other, or at least not judging before reading a it more on your own accord and desire.
Someone pointed about issues on buddhism, which are true issues.
But eastern religions take from buddhism, taoism and confucionism religions and it is not uncommon to take a few different takes from each one of these as one goes in their own studies.
Same way, I think the rise of pagan religions would be useful to have the idea of being exposed to different concepts of religious ideas
Or similarly, different philosophical ideas, like reading from plato, but also from hume, but also from descartes, but also from....
As long as one doesn't stay stagnant on the same philosophical pool, there is no harm browsing (with sufficient care) other ideas.
An important addition is that saying "we are animals" isn't supposed to cut what we judge to be morally right or wrong.
If anything, "We are animals" must be used to know that other animals may probably have similar introspection as us and we are unaware, thinking o ourselves as special kind of creature when it is far from being true.
If, let's say hypothetically, a cow do have not only feelings but also moral thought, thinking of a sacred "cow god/goddess) and having moral argument with fellow cows, then it just makes butchering them even more of a "crime" that it is already.
HOW we fuck the are?