So the answer to too much automation is more automation?
"Better automation" is more to the point. Relative to the sophistication of airframes, turbines, and other aircraft electromechanical and aerodynamic systems, the Automation is roughly in the era of the DC-3: clunky and sparse in function and comfort, but moderately tough.
All modern aircraft rely on system redundancy, but can any system be deemed truly redundant if it relies on the same components on each of its legs?
This is really a core issue -- which applies to the entire present global aircraft fleet: reliance on a single method for airspeed sensing, no matter how tried and true, means that single-mode perturbances will be able to cause accidents leading to the loss of aircraft and all aboard.
At present there are at least a dozen methods known that could be used to provide precision airspeed indications (especially in specific situations, such as very high, very fast, very slow) to complement pitot speed data, and/or replace it during icing and similar fault events.
To not have such redundancy in measuring this absolutely critical flight parameter on large passenger aircraft, even with the inevitable increment of cost for the devices and associated logistics, is to disregard a range of undesirable possibilities that probably should not be dismissed as unimportant.