In January 2017 Steven Poole wrote in The Guardian amidst threats of gene editing[ disambiguation needed] that "this high-management style contains much fashionable vacuity (we should avoid “linear thinking”, it says, which is meaningless however you interpret it), and also a weird kind of imagistic brutality – the “ gig economy” companies such as Uber or Taskrabbit are “human cloud platforms”, as though the serfs who work for them are euphoric angels playing harps on a bed of cumulonimbus. To complete the style, just add a heavy dose of tech-utopian boilerplate, such as the claim that “digital technology knows no borders”, which of course it does: witness Facebook’s recent decision to comply with China’s censorship laws so it can operate there." The dominant ideology of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, transhumanism, has attracted at least one academic bioethicist critic, [20] [21] although it has its supporters in the popular press, too. [22] The Great Reset has attracted its own share of critics, and certain among these approach the topic from a biblical perspective. [23] [24] The Financial Times "innovation editor" found "the clunking lifelessness of the prose" led him to "suspect this book really was written by humans — ones who inhabit a strange twilight world of stakeholders, externalities, inflection points and “developtory sandboxes”." [25] One writer sought to "engage in the discourse of posthumanism and cybernetics and how these debates relate to craft and making.." and to produce "a humble attempt to reorient makers to the necessary discourse required to navigate the inevitable changes they will face in their disciplines. Thus, the article seeks to transfer posthumanist literary understanding to intellectually position craft in the Fourth Industrial Revolution." [26]

en.m.wikipedia.org