Computers and computer systems are build up from deterministic, comprehensible, building blocks. Their operations and behaviors can be understood and reasoned about. I relate my personal beliefs and mindset on this point, and explore some manifestations and ramifications of this philosophy.
@glyph That piece is an epistemological argument in the same way that yours is, which I feel would not be compelling to people who haven't developed priors that justify a want of understanding. Indeed, that piece acnkowledges that and implies (and almost explicitly says) that understanding as the end goal is counterproductive.
Which is not to say that the joy of understanding isn't a valid one (I care about it a lot), it's just that if that doesn't motivate people, I don't think your point holds up.
"Everything is interesting if you go into it deeply enough."
I try to imagine that computing is to many folks as taxes and regulation are to me. But then I realize that I think that these topics are interesting, if approached in the right context, and I've lost my ability to empathize again...
@sirosen
There is, at least, a reasonably immediate and consequential impact to ignoring legal obligations. The long-term impact of not understanding a computing technology sufficiently is… rarely concretely explained, and the accountability aspect is rarely directly felt by the people who err.