>>12141103[2/2]
>wealthy people don't hold that much power!why is it that wages have stagnated but land value (hence rent) has skyrocketed? A simple issue that politicians don't seriously combat due to the benefits it gives to the wealthy.
>my point?Under the power structure wherein the worker doesn't have enough power there is little incentive to care for their safety, privacy, or individuality - infact there is economical incentive to do the opposite. The risk of transhumanism depend on
1) how wealthy you are (ability to secure safe implants)
2) the state of the checks in the economy.
3) the morals of the CEO
>is 3) @Elon?Elon Musk loves tech, he poses little risk to public health as he derives utility from the morals of his own company. The problem is that CEO #2 doesn't care as it's not his company and he doesn't derive utility from morals of the company and will be removed by the board of directors if he ruins the $$$ flow. I applaud Elon for his initiatives in tech that run counter to the stagnation of car and battery companies. I highly doubt as the PRIVATE owner of his own company Elon founded for his dreams will pose significant public health risk compared to the other companies that come in the market for profit.
>closing thoughtshalting technological advancements due to morals is dumb, instead you should focus if the power structure of the world enables abuse of the technology to the detriment of the society (see regulations on explosives and drugs). Tech progress will never stop - The Chinese will surpass whatever pitiful country you're in if you decide "Transhumanism dumb!" and then practice economic domination over your country like the US has done to SA. With Elon being relatively benign and Europe being relatively safe from cooperate oligarchy (EU they can conduct independent investigations from) I don't see a credible risk of transhumanism back-firing in the beginning stages (next ~20 years), but I see the risk as time goes on.
