Neanderthals faced a different species of humans whose culture they were not capable of integrating into. Humanity right now forms one unified global culture through which ideas and technology freely flow. The rising tide of technology is lifting all boats (massive wage growth globally).

Moreover, it's not clear that your premise is accurate. Neanderthals constitute 3 percent of Eurasian human genes, meaning that their genes were evolutionarily successful (3% * 6 billion > 100% * 100,000), and this is ignoring the success of their close kin, with whom they already shared >99% genes.

We are about to face a few individuals with technology will hold massive power over everyone else. Given human nature, I would guess they'd primarily will be concerned with fighting among each other, and would care very little about harming the masses, if we got in between them and something they wanted. How a "unified global culture" is going to fix that, I haven't any idea. (And you believe were in a unified global culture, really? From North Korea to Sweden, really?)

Your second point is baffling to me. Why not include mice, they have 97.5% of our genes, as being successful? Why not all mammals? Oh, except horses, of course, because you said in a previous comment we are different from them. If you can call neathenderals successful, then I don't know what you are actually arguing for.

>We are about to face a few individuals with technology will hold massive power over everyone else.

There are plenty of counterindications to that. For instance, many forms of technology are becoming increasingly widely adopted, at a rapid pace. I gave the adoption of smartphones as one example.

>Why not include mice, they have 97.5% of our genes, as being successful? Why not all mammals? Oh, except horses, of course, because you said in a previous comment we are different from them.

I would say the success of human beings is by some metrics a success for mice, mammals etc as well..

Technology adoption != power. Everyone using a cell phone which tracks their position, communication, and behavior, and then feeds them propaganda from a central server is not increasing their ability to fight back.

>I would say the success of human beings is by some metrics a success for mice, mammals etc as well..

But, again, as you stated previously, not horses? Seriously, you are moving the goalposts all over the place.

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.