The proliferation of smartphones doesn't lead to everyone getting "propaganda from a central server". A smartphone is a personal computing device that enables far more peer-to-peer communication and interactive engagement with the world than the previous mass-media paradigm of the pre-internet age (where a small number of broadcast networks, newspapers and radio stations controlled the minds of the vast majority of the population through passive one-way communication).
I agree that the loss of privacy is a huge concern, but like I said, there are positive trends as well that you are simply hand-waving away.
>But, again, as you stated previously, not horses?
Horses as well!
> Seriously, you are moving the goalposts all over the place.
I directly addressed your argument and then I also made an additional argument that your premise is not necessarily true. That's not defined as moving the goalposts.
> I directly addressed your argument and then I also made an additional argument that your premise is not necessarily true. That's not defined as moving the goalposts.
You've stated or implied:
1. Property rights is the reason that technology is augmenting humans
2. Unified global culture is the reason that technology is augmenting humans
3. Having a genetic legacy is evidence my "premise is not necessarily true"
You are definitely moving the goal posts by #1 and #2.
Also, you've failed to address:
1. Why Neanderthals were augmented despite not having property rights (#1, above)
2. What my premise has to do with genetic legacy. From what I gather, you assume that as long as the people alive today share genetic material with other species, either alive or dead, my premise is inaccurate. Why?
3. What your premise actually is. Are you talking about genetically legacy, or something else? Is all that you are saying is that those alive tomorrow will at least share some DNA from those already dead? Not much of a shocker, is it?
You are being, seemingly intentionally, unclear about many things, as well as bringing up several different threads of thought at once, muddying the conversation.
I agree that the loss of privacy is a huge concern, but like I said, there are positive trends as well that you are simply hand-waving away.
>But, again, as you stated previously, not horses?
Horses as well!
> Seriously, you are moving the goalposts all over the place.
I directly addressed your argument and then I also made an additional argument that your premise is not necessarily true. That's not defined as moving the goalposts.