I think, possibly, you are still stubbornly mistaking the meaning of the C in CS, as the two words in question are homonyms, so it is easy to do and extraordinarily common. Nevertheless it is incorrect, and no matter if every single person on the planet, and every single alien of every alien species in the whole of space-time from the Big Bang to the Big Dark Freeze or whatever thinks what you do, they'd still be wrong, as you are.

First of all, it isn't a pen and paper, or stylus on clay, or finger in the sand, just tools, that the digital computer replaces, it is a mind-boggling amount of time thinking, or figuring, or computing, too. You want to eliminate the thinking, but it is critical that you leave it where it is, because only humans, and possibly other mammals, and perhaps other animals, can think. Computers, like your PS5, can't think, and will not ever be able to. What you want to do, and others that believe falsely as you do, it seems, is dispatch with the person. Computer Science can't do that, and not ever, not until we can make people, and we already can so there's no incentive to find a much much harder and far far more expensive and much much much less fun way.

And people use computers for all kinds of things, but mostly, almost none of it is or is for computer science. And computer science is cheap, it doesn't cost anything but time (but I guess time is money, or the sqrt of evil etc.) So while it is luxurious to have a budget with a lot of cool tools available, there really are plenty of American and other Western universities that teach a decent CS curriculum without 4 computers per student, and their graduates are fully prepared for a CS career. I don't think you meant to insult them by calling them the Third World, but you kind of did that. A big budget helps any department. That doesn't mean money is computer science, although... computer scientists often work in economics positions and finance positions and secretly or officially do really neat computer science sometimes.

Secondly, fundamentally my argument is semantic, and your dismissal of semantics reveals some grave misjudgments. Semantics are of vital importance, and in every single exchange of understood communication, fully half the weight of everything there is in that is semantic in nature. If I don't understand what you're saying, or worse, if you don't understand what you're saying, then you can see there's a problem worth correcting.

The ideal candidate for computer science does not say, "I like computers, I want to work with computers, computers fascinate me. I want to know how they work. I love programming computers. I want to learn every language in use today, and be a programmer." The ideal candidate instead would say, "I love to compute, to figure. I want to know how to solve any problem. Puzzles fascinate me. I like figuring things out. I had exhausted my school districts math classes by the time I got to High School, and got a 4 on the Calculus AP exam in 10th grade. I audited some math classes at the local community college over the summers that I'm transferring in." Maybe that's a little too ideal. I was not, but math wizzes seem kind of common, I mean rare really, but always present. They make great computer scientists.

A computer science grad that wants to be a programmer will do well for themselves, programmers earn, and it is a highly respectable career. If nothing else will convince everyone, the difference in salaries between computer scientists and programmers should, except that some IT positions will inexplicably require a computer science undergraduate degree for $25/hr, so ignore the outliers when researching salaries.