Where is the line for a job that needs to be preserved at all costs because its someone's livelihood and a job that is ok to be destroyed by the advancement of technology. The "computers" your computer replaced were presumably quite proud of their talents and their livelihoods. Coal miners have been fighting for the livelihoods for decades now, but we happily applaud the advancements of technology that make coal mining obsolete. 2D animation artists were devastated by modern CGI and the advancements brought on by computer animation. "The Little Mermaid" employed well over 300 people in the animation related aspects of that movie[1]. Encanto employed over 500 in its CGI work[2]. Should we have banned CGI and prevented 500 jobs to preserve 300 because they were there first? We can absolutely acknowledge that peoples livelihoods can and will be affected by the advancement of technology. But the appropriate response to that isn't trying to stop the advancement of technology or artificially propping up dying jobs. It's finding way to help people make livelihood changes where they can, and helping them continue to afford living where they can't make those changes.
[1]: https://walt-disney-animation-studios.fandom.com/wiki/The_Li...
[2]: https://jhmoviecollection.fandom.com/wiki/Encanto_(film)/Cre...