By now the reader should have some opinion on the contents of this discourse and the arguments it puts forward; indeed, a response is encouraged, as this text has emphasised autonomy and the optimisation of all things that support it. The contents of the reader’s opinion are still important, of course, as a response that shuns autonomy of any citizen or disregards sustainability of economy in any way has clearly ignored the issues with doing so, detailed throughout history and summarized in this text. Yet should the reader now hold an opinion heeding these warnings, this treatise is considered a success, even should it fail to assert Transhumanism, fairly assess it or even accurately describe society, as the reader may believe. One may even argue that the definitions and utility of subject matter in this treatise is incorrect, unnecessary, absurd or any polemic that one cares to use. As far as this treatise is concerned, any opinion of the reader is adequate providing it remains cognizant of neglecting autonomy and economy.

This persuasion of the reader’s attitude, to be mindful of dissent and stagnation, is intended to incite concern for the future, near or far. With technology increasing the means and duration of one’s life, the sustainability of said life becomes more pertinent to one’s continued wellbeing, particularly with regard to the future of one’s society. Indeed, with the rise of more sophisticated and pervasive technology, it is likely to be in one’s best interest to consider alternatives to previous and current economic theories; to that end, one is best served by anticipating transitions of and disruptions to societal mechanisms and the interplay of autonomy, economy and

technology. Whether avoiding societal turmoil caused by mass redundancy, liberating economy from the inadequacy of human nature or reconciling issues of cultural differences compounded by a difference in technological utility, one’s opinion will be of most use to one’s self when appreciating the full scale and impact of these phenomena on society. Thus, rousing one’s views to these issues prepares one to ensure the continued safety and sustainability of one’s self, especially in dismantling, repealing and/or improving ineffectual social contracts and revolutionizing social policy, which will be required to ensure technological advancement civilizes society, rather than disrupts it.

It is this catalytic aspect of opinion that this author has sought to rouse, for the theory of this treatise is not likely to effect much change given its limitations. The author suspects that the future is more likely to be dystopian than not, given the logistics of emancipating society, the susceptibility of societal discourse to contention, subsequent dissonance and the scourge of uncivil intent. Such a suspicion is grounded in the fact that, through one or more of these phenomena, influential citizens are more likely to co-opt, infiltrate or otherwise sabotage any and all attempts at civilization in bids to retain or expand advantages they hold; the difficulty in adequately fulfilling all citizens to the detriment of none is thus the single greatest and most persistent obstacle in humanity’s history. Having incited one to opinion, it is here that the author entrusts such matters to the reader; to discuss and determine, to achieve and perfect, the foreseeable future.