Ask Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, ask the photo-chemical suppliers to the industry, not to mention camera manufacturers etc. It's been far from a bloodless revolution and for what? To make it easier for non-photographers to make reasonably exposed photographs. Pace professional stock shooters et al.
Rob, transitions like this never have been bloodless. The cotton gin revolution was bloody. The horseless carriage revolution was bloody. The transition from manual to computer bookkeeping was bloody. The transition from operator-connected phones to automation was bloody. To name just a few. In every transition like these, masses of people lose their jobs, and the society has to adjust to doing things differently. But in the end, society always has been the beneficiary.
I don't agree with Walter. Everybody gets cranked up because, as you say, digital has made it easier for non-photographers to make reasonably exposed photographs. Why is that bad? Making it easier for people to make reasonably exposed photographs doesn't make them better photographers. Reasonable exposure, reasonable focus, reasonable depth of field, these things never have been the criteria for a fine photograph. The criterion has been the capture of something meaningful, something that can give the viewer a transcendental experience -- just as that's been the criterion for great music, great poetry, great painting, etc.
Yes, professional photographers have taken a big hit, just as cotton separators took a big hit, and buggy makers and livery operators took a big hit, and bookkeepers took a big hit, and telephone operators took a big hit. You should be happy you're retired. You missed the worst of the hit.