There are two disjunct issues here:

Respecting people despite accidents of fate or chance which locally constrain their spectrum of abilites, distinguished from providing means for extending capabilities as to compensate for such constraints. The former is intrinsically social-psychological; the latter is material (biomechanical or biotechnological or technological.)

At the rock bottom foundation of the former is the counter of the unfortunately widespread paradigm of looking down on a category people for some stated reason. So the fundamental issue is the motivation or disposition of looking down upon or disrespecting people.

There is no technology which operates in the physical universe to do this or to prevent it (the question of neural-AI-nanotechnology ‘programmed’ to combat prejudice would be another discussion/can of worms.)

re estimations:

It seems the reader of the quote is inveighed to judge the truth value of any assertion that mnt is a feasible technology on whether some particular organization of donors has met two unrelated global-scale objectives. This is both an ad hominem-type fallacy and an epistemological fallacy concerning the best mode of feasibility assessment.

Obviously the group has some good motivations. But it seems there’s also an antitechnological prejudice underlying these comments if the tone of Christine’s post is a fair reflection. If their principal objective is something wider than opposing every technology on every front, I’d hope that the ETC Group endeavors to hone its efforts and analyses, and would do so in a self-critical way by considering these points. It would seem to me that that’s the best way to advance their cause beyond the mere activity of counterpoint.
–E.