The religious argument is worthless, as are all arguments that stem from argument from authority.
The totalitarian argument is not relevant because advertisement exists. Your mind is controllable without putting a chip in it. A-B testing and pharmacology are improving their methods. Would it be faster with brainchips? Sure, but it will happen regardless.
It ultimately is a matter of survival. Those that adopt greater technology faster will out preform those that do not. Even if the West does not pursue this path China will. Either we adopt eugenics or transhumanism or we cease being relevant and go the way of the Amish, locked in small irrelevant communities that none-the-less have to bow to those with power.
Humanity being enslaved under transhumanism is not the only way for humanity to survive.
You fail to grasp what transhumanism really means.
If humanity's only path to survival is everyone becoming a automaton connected to other automatons, what is the point of survival?
Humanity has survived for millennia without transhumanism.
You are also delusional if you think China will succeed in advancing transhumanism in the scenario where the U.S. does not head on the path to transhumanism.
China has a culture of conformity not innovation.
They have not made any large scientific advancements in the last century. They constantly steal intellectual property from the U.S.
The totalitarian argument is not relevant because advertisement exists. Your mind is controllable without putting a chip in it. A-B testing and pharmacology are improving their methods.
I don't disagree that cybernetic enhancements are inevitable, and I'm not strongly for or against, but this doesn't make his argument irrelevant. Pushing for minimizing or having less of "Bad Thing" is a valid tactic even if some "Bad Thing" is unavoidable. It's like arguing you shouldn't build a wall at the border because illegal immigrants are going to get in anyway, through other means. Perhaps he wants to live in little Amish communities free of totalitarians, and protect that lifestyle for as long as possible.
The religious argument is worthless, as are all arguments that stem from argument from authority.
The totalitarian argument is not relevant because advertisement exists. Your mind is controllable without putting a chip in it. A-B testing and pharmacology are improving their methods. Would it be faster with brainchips? Sure, but it will happen regardless.
It ultimately is a matter of survival. Those that adopt greater technology faster will out preform those that do not. Even if the West does not pursue this path China will. Either we adopt eugenics or transhumanism or we cease being relevant and go the way of the Amish, locked in small irrelevant communities that none-the-less have to bow to those with power.
Humanity being enslaved under transhumanism is not the only way for humanity to survive.
You fail to grasp what transhumanism really means.
If humanity's only path to survival is everyone becoming a automaton connected to other automatons, what is the point of survival?
Humanity has survived for millennia without transhumanism.
You are also delusional if you think China will succeed in advancing transhumanism in the scenario where the U.S. does not head on the path to transhumanism.
China has a culture of conformity not innovation.
They have not made any large scientific advancements in the last century. They constantly steal intellectual property from the U.S.
I don't disagree that cybernetic enhancements are inevitable, and I'm not strongly for or against, but this doesn't make his argument irrelevant. Pushing for minimizing or having less of "Bad Thing" is a valid tactic even if some "Bad Thing" is unavoidable. It's like arguing you shouldn't build a wall at the border because illegal immigrants are going to get in anyway, through other means. Perhaps he wants to live in little Amish communities free of totalitarians, and protect that lifestyle for as long as possible.