John Foreman’s use of the doom-and-gloom tactic is interesting. On one hand it is a useful narrative that showcases his opinion; suppressed enthusiasm by the consequences of the technology. But is his negative attitude towards where the technology is pushing society any different than many headlines make? Should I stop drinking milk because it increases my risk of getting cancer? Should you stop reading this blog post on the computer that sits in your lap because it kills sperm count? Should you stop reading my nonsensical words on your phone that is sitting on your chest because it might cause breast cancer? Some of these cases are using worst case scenarios to make you believe whatever fact or opinion they have.
Bringing me to my second point, Foreman is using similar methods that an advertisement will use to push their product/opinion. He is attempting to illicit an emotional response so that his argument becomes more valid in the reader’s mind (the better his argument gets, the better his name is known, the more books he sells). Objectively, are his points valid? Certainly. Does his use of the doom-and-gloom tactic weaken his argument? Definitely not. This is how you win arguments, by presenting facts in a way that illicit an emotional response. Would you be persuaded by a presidential candidate if they just spit out facts, or would it be more effective to give you a sob story to showcase the facts? The answer is pretty clear (for the majority of people). So does using emotion fueled targeted ads destroy humanity? No because at the end of the day, you are making the decision to buy the good or service, and (depending on who you talk to) this ability to freely choose is what makes us human.
Actually, I’m not sure I see your point. You observe that Foreman is making emotional appeals—the same thing he accuses other companies of doing—but I don’t see what the larger implication is for the scenarios he’s describing.