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!