Hope you don't mind if I ask this OT question here: Could you direct me to some (to use your own nomenclature) 'Robot Cult' defense against your criticism of their ideas? It's been fairly difficult for me to come across anything concrete so far. Thanks and good job with the blog.
Of course, part of the problem is that I don't have just one but many criticisms of futurology, both in its more mainstream and more extreme subcultural (Robot Cult) forms.
For instance, I criticize the pseudo-science of many of its articles of faith -- and not only that, but while cryonics, uploading, SENS, desktop nanofactories, artificial intelligence, and so on are all quite marginal to the scientific consensus in the relevant fields, as indicated by citation indexes, grants, and so on, but they are marginal to different degrees and in different ways, ways that actually make a difference to each critique on this score (and as a nonscientist I recommend critics like Athena Andreadis, Richard Jones, P.Z. Myers, among others as important voices to whom I regularly turn myself in making these sorts of assessments).
But I also criticize the anti-democratic politics to which futurological beliefs ultimately conduce in my view, sometimes in ways the transhumanoids do not fully grasp themselves -- and, once again, this takes different forms that matter quite a bit depending on the particular Robot Cult sect you are focusing on. Transhumanoid eugenicism is reactionary in a different way than greenwashing "geo-engineering" is, or the way fantasies about a coding a "friendly" super-intelligent Robot God might make people apolitical and complacent about urgent problems is reactionary, or the way techno-immortalist daydreams for bourgeois Boomer distracting attention from neglected treatable diseases in over-exploited regions of the world or healthcare reform or more public funding for actually promising medical research is reactionary or the way techno-enthusiasm translates in real time to celebrity CEO worship and hyper gizmo consumerism is reactionary and so on.
I also criticize the subcultural dynamics in futurological precincts of True Believers and guru wannabes and pseudo-expertise and think-tank pseudo-intellectualism that have terrible impacts on individual lives (like fundamentalist faith so often does more generally in my view) but also negative impacts on intellectual standards on which pillar civilizational institutions depend for their maintenance. Another thing I often do in my critiques is to expose rhetorical tropes and frames in futurological discourse that connect to theological, mythological, scientistic, marketing and promotional forms, some of which I abhor, others of which simply interest me, but most of which most futurologists seem quite uncomfortable about. And yet another thing I occasionally do in a more muckraking journalistic way, I suppose, is to reveal specific discursive and even organizational ties of transhumanoids and other futurologists with Movement Conservatives, market fundamentalist libertarians, neoliberal policymaking (all the Ayn Raelian types), Bell Curve and evo-psycho bigot apologists, cyber-hippy corporate sell-outs, and also, you know, phony vitamin supplement- slash- TED-talk slash- life-coach con-artists and bullshit artists, and so on -- sometimes just exposing the fraud as a skeptic would, sometimes connecting dots among secretive bazillionaires, sometimes worrying about the way dumb pseudo-intellectuals loons sucking up to rich people while telling dramatic lies to a befuddled public can have an impact wildly disproportionate to the one you would think kooks could ever manage (as witness the Neocons).
Quite apart from all that, I also talk about the way in which futurological discourses are a kind of clarifying reductio ad absurdum of actually prevailing assumptions, attitudes, and aspirations in this unsustainable, deceptive/ hyperbolic self-promotional, anti-intellectual, hyper-consumerist, techno-fetishistic, market-oriented, corporate-militarist culture of ours.
Now, while there are many people who have argued against the separate pieces of my critique -- and often they do so in the comments sections of the posts in which I propose these critiques, often they do so in essays and articles in their own spaces, sometimes explicitly in response to me (and that might be a good way to find the kind of information you are looking for, in the Moot here but also via the google), I am pretty sure that nobody has ever responded to my critique in toto. And to be fair, neither have I really made the whole case in a single place. It's easy enough to infer from the Condensed Critique of Transhumanism and the Futurology Against Ecology pieces anthologized over on the sidebar, but most of the critique and the response to it (and the cases made by futurologists to which the critiques are themselves often proximately responding), is a more conversational affair.
I fear this won't be a very satisfying answer. But by all means, feel free to ask more and I might have more specific responses to questions you have in mind. (And also, now that I have upgraded this to a post of its own, any readers who have suggestions, by all means offer them up in the Moot to this post.)