There's a philosophical differentiation between engineering artisans and production-oriented engineers. I know an architect who only worked on paper drawings and didn't reskill for CAD. He's nostalgic for the old days, and doesn't practise now. In fact, he's unemployable as an architect. Most paper drawings carried the exhortation "do not scale from drawing!", the two most obvious reasons being that sometimes draftspeople make mistakes and that paper isn't dimensionally stable in most environments. A "draft" copy is one that's considered lower-quality or unfinished. Hand drafting, and even 2D CAD, is more likely to have errors than projections derived from a 3D model, and enhancements to 3D CAD like collision and interference detection (animated drawings of moving parts are 4D CAD) have probably saved billions of dollars in wasted time and prototype development. Paper drawings can't convey curved surface definitions that can be created and reproduced to fine resolution with CAD/CAM. Traditional drawings should be recognised as artisanship, but as production aids they're little more than a formal or standardised back-of-envelope or restaurant-napkin sketch, relying almost as much on the reader as the drafter for correct interpretation. A designer conceives of something in 3D, and 3D CAD can communicate the concept unambiguously. If the designer uses 3D CAD to sketch a concept, the production of drawings, to standards, is automated. A Luddite's view of CAD is natural for a traditional draftsperson.
Apologies for the rant, I've had this conversation before!