> 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.
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.