Wieselter seems to think that it's all about the message -- it's all about how the marketers and hypsters and intellectuals talk about the world; that by our passive acceptance of their vision, our world has become theirs. I think we are slaves to the system we are a part of, not that our passive acceptance shapes it. I see it as like a knot: you can try to pull one way or another, but then you get stuck and things tighten up. The only way to un-knot it is if everyone pulls in the right direction, all at the same time; otherwise, you end up with thousands of people starving, because the deliverymen or shopkeepers aren't doing their jobs. Technology also isn't neurtral; it pulls us into the future, away from the organic and the ancient:
Companies that don't keep up with the latest technologies to increase efficiency are at a competitive disadvantage. So, technology flourishes. And then companies need even more technology to stay competitive with tomorrow's companies.
People and organizatons that don't pay attention to the future lose in the marketplace. It's fine that people want to value culture and humansitic ideas, they will always be there; but in the meantime, people need food and shelter -- and that takes money. Part of the reason people heed futurists is that they give them a vision of world better than the one they are living in now; but another powerful force is the need for companies and governments to better estimate risk -- and that will never go away, as it is resiliant to changes in culture and attitudes.
People will always enhance themselves; not everyone, but most. Would you want to be a retarded, unenhanced human in a world where everyone else is enhanced? Humans are hierarchical and social creatures; it's part of our ape ancestry -- and nobody wants to be on the bottom. Some humans even want to be well thought of for their pretentious articles in the New York Times, rather than second-rate writers who got priced out of existence by Amazon -- see!