However, we must not overlook: The fact that these views are often cultivated by the very elites we blame. The fact that poverty and lack of education are the best fertilizer for such ideologies to take root.

When it comes to dependent or socially backward groups, we enter more sensitive and complex territory. It is true that many demographic groups are kept (or even trap themselves) in outdated ideologies—racism, religious fanaticism, intolerance.

Justice, in many countries, is an instrument of power, not a guardian of equality. Acknowledging this problem is the first step—because if you don't name it, you can't fight it.

Cutting-edge technology in health, longevity, and the management of essential resources (water, food) should be a public good, not a privilege for the few. Instead, we see: Patents imprisoning medicines. Health technologies turned into investment products. Information being manipulated.

Technology and progress are not shared equally — not even fairly. The "elites," as you describe them, often monopolize access to resources, knowledge, and political power, prioritizing their own preservation — not the advancement of society as a whole.

I hope that the establishment is not already so powerful that the path to transhumanism is inevitably elitist.

Technology is a tool. It has no inherent ethics. Ethics come from us—from who controls it and for what purpose. I hope there is a real possibility to shift the balance and for these technologies to become a public good.

Will it be controlled by a small group of private individuals with the motive of profit and their own personal immortality? Or will we manage it as a common good, with ethical constraints, transparency, and a measure that serves the collective interest?

This echoes the darkest eugenic ideas of the 20th century, but with incredibly more powerful tools. The real question, therefore, is not "if we will extend life or enhance the brain," but "WHO will decide how and for whom this is done?"

The Ethical Dilemma: Who defines what "improvement" means? If Bezos says the future belongs to people with specific genes or neural interfaces, then everyone else becomes a second-class citizen from birth.

also control the means of biological and cognitive production (Neuralink, genomics companies), then they fully control the future. Knowledge becomes a commodity, locked behind patents and inaccessible for the public good.

The Control of Knowledge: This is the most dangerous point. When the same people who control the means of production (Musk, Bezos, etc.)

those who live 100+ healthy years with super-intelligent children, and those who suffer and die young from problems that have been solved for decades. This is not simply unequal. It is biological apartheid.

The Diminishment of the Human Experience: If longevity and cognitive enhancements become the privilege of the wealthy, we de facto create two different kinds of humans:

The essence is that these technologies are currently being developed by a very few, for a very few. The danger is not the technology itself, but the elitism that drives it.

The cognitive dimension of the human being is expanded, enabling us to understand the Universe and ourselves more deeply.These are not merely “nice to have.” They are fundamental rights in a potential future era of abundant knowledge and possibility.

The brain can communicate directly with computers, giving people with physical disabilities means of expression that are unimaginable today.

The Potential for Liberation I envision a future where: Pain and death from diseases that are currently considered incurable become a matter of choice, not fate.

yet they are already present and pose real questions about how we define humanity, our identity, our ethics, and our future.

There is a risk of creating new forms of inequality or even systems of control that could profoundly impact society. Concepts like "transhumanism" and "posthumanism" may sound futuristic or even science-fictional,

On the other hand, linking these technologies to powerful economic and political actors — such as billionaires and political leaders — raises significant questions regarding ethics, equitable access, social justice, and who will ultimately control these advancements.

On one hand, the idea of extending human life through technologies such as organ replacement, the cure of incurable diseases, and anti-aging methods is indeed a rapidly evolving field, with tremendous potential to improve both the quality and length of human life.

So, we see that we are ultimately entering a very interesting and complex subject, one that has multiple dimensions — social, political, scientific, and ethical.

Your concern that benefits such as life extension or the cure of diseases may not be fairly accessible is absolutely valid and well-founded

What you're describing is a form of 'technological aristocracy' or 'knowledge elitism', where the ultra-wealthy and powerful believe they have the right to define humanity’s future without considering ethics, equality, or the common good.

You describe a reality where power and wealth are concentrated in the hands of a few, who steer technological progress toward their own interests, potentially creating a future that excludes the majority of humanity.

This analysis, I feel, touches on deep concerns shared by many people around the world regarding technological advancement, inequality, and the control of knowledge.

I won’t hide the fact that the odds are against us, but it’s worth the risk in order to evolve. At the very least, I’m not someone who will give up. It may be necessary to maneuver within this elitist establishment in order to succeed. We may lose — but at least we’ll know that we tried.

We need to focus on bringing together the rational-thinking and logically-minded population of the planet into a state of communication and organization, in order to demand and resist. We are tragically few... but we were even fewer ten years ago.

So here I sound the alarm — this is the moment when we must resist, change, and fight against the fate that awaits us and the generations to come.

Then these exploiters swoop in, take them, and reap the benefits of this knowledge — and they will surely exploit the results and the profits. These benefits will then be distributed only to those they choose, and they will not be accessible to the masses.

To achieve all this, they use people — scientists — who are our own children, and who study and develop their scientific skills through education provided by public university institutions that belong to all of us.

They have therefore instructed scientists and companies that are controlled by and dependent on them to develop methods and treatments for diseases, for anti-aging, for genome renewal, brain function enhancement, etc.

Elon Musk has a company like Neuralink, and other oligarchs have similar kinds of companies elsewhere, and so the data works in their favor... meaning, for the benefit of the few.

as has become apparent, are already being developed and researched in laboratories under their control and at their direction (which seems logical).