As asked on LinkedIn and my response (with blood somewhat surging in my head) was as follows.
To me Manual Testing is lot like emotion as segregated from the automated testing which I would liken to a machine.
Just as I feel gushing pride or happiness deep inside with a tear welling up and even streaming down my cheek, I would say in the same breath that manual testing can never die.
Just as I cannot make do with a Roxxxy that science unleashes upon us which I would willingly forego to hold a hand with veins of love generating sensual warmth – I think a human’s value to testing and her account of experience with a colourful screen with buttons that does this-and-that cannot be ever replaced.
Can a Roxxxy replace the smile on your daughter’s face and the sweetness emanating when you surprise her with a Barbie? There are so many shades of emotions that a human brings on table which a machine cannot. And emotions are vented through capabilities within us.
While I mean to insult no-one’s sensibilities, isn’t this plain common-sense? That the value of the most inexperienced manual tester will rise many fold if he through his cognitive capabilities manages to find a show-stopper bug on the day of release.
Automated testing has value which is undeniable but it is also sadly over-hyped especially by those who sit in cushy and tall management chairs knowing little about testing. And when they do guys like Paul Walchak (and me and many others) will spend time wasting space and words defending the might of the mind!
Lets use Automated testing driven by man but at least let’s keep our sensibilities in tact about what a machine cannot do and more importantly what WE CAN do.
The complete discussion is here. Beware it is very long.