KeepItStraight, #39, even with generalisation, you perpetuate a myth.
Increasingly the 'lead' time in designing and producing a new aircraft is tens of years; requiring foresight of operations, traffic, density, economics, and system technologies.
A wide ranging view as a pilot, 'in research', 'in design', development and certification, in sales, customer support - flying down the line, and finally safety, there is no single view of todays so-called automation dependancy.
Viewpoints are according to experience; we 'pilots' are a major contributor to the perception of modern problems - is automation dependency a problem, or is our perception a problem. Humans are poor at foreseeing the future, also judging the current status against what many years ago was / was not 'foreseen'; we forget, we don't wish to remember.
A defining technological 'milestone' was the Advance Flight Deck research simulation; 45 years ago, its excellence recognised by the Smithsonian. Revolutionary use of CRTs, highly automated for economic operation in high density, noise abate, low vis operations. World wide pilot assessment fell into two groups. The old school, P1only, hand-fly anything. And those aware of future context, situation management, automated systems, and workload. These groups were geographically divided, divisions which can still be identified, where manufactures still have to satisfy both.
Beware of generalisations; what we look for is often what we find. And when considering the situation today, question the history; is this what we asked for, foresaw, if not why not. Also consider inherent bias of what we believe to be the future - something which we should have now, or should be doing now.