Just because I've used couple of terms people are automatically putting me into leftist category.

Anyway, agenda is not about how something is equally distributed. It is about a holistic perspective. 

Possible effects of innovation and progress on arts, health, architecture, social disciplines, culture in general etc. must be planned properly to not only to ensure progress but create an actual civilization/culture of progress, innovation.

To plan that you need to have very firm values, be it economic and social to build that culture on it.

Thats what I am emphasizing on.

Capitalist success lies in its ability to utilize economical/technological progress for the sake of a very large group which, as the living conditions went better and better, included nearly all of the society.

Problem is we are not at that stage anymore.

 I never claimed there is something wrong with bourgeoise....

Progress, aka moving forward from current state of art is done by inventing things which requires one to know the fundamental principles in his field. Scientist is not a job but engineer is.  One can be scientist and engineer at the same time.

Bourgeoise is essentially, through leftist/marxist narrative, a group of people who held capital. And they used this capital to finance scientists of their time or they were those scientists, and through that they ensured economical progress.

The main argument here is that a group/class of people ensure progress for their own betterment. If we would like to have a philosophy for progressivism, we need to have an agenda. For whom this progress is for? And how to finance it? What is our moral foundation of operating this progress? And so on.

Technology must be defined properly and should not be framed as "everything else." There are many theories on that but you could check Heidegger and Technology as a starters.

If a group capable people does not want to struggle for better institutions in their home country, no one has the obligation to open a piece of their land to them.

If someone is trying to catch a fish with very old, rusty fishing rod, getting them a new rod will probably feed a person who is self-sufficient. If people of a certain country wants to build a better society but lacks funds, we can help them.

But you can not help people who does not want to help themselves. 

The main problem in this text is the term "progress" is assumed as something good from the very start. Progress or technology or "techne" in itself is neutral.  If there is no underlying meta narrative that not only justifies the progress but also shapes it and shows it's direction, progress will cease to exist. Now I'm not a leftist or Marxist or anything but bourgeoise is a thing and Enlightment Era has been started by them not for the sake of progress but for the sake of themselves.

So a group/class/clique whatever essentially invests in preparing grounds for progress for their own benefit. And supports/finances group of people who does science for the science's sake because it is in their nature to do so (yeah im an essentialist.) 

Bare in mind, progress is made by scientists but "progressivism" is not created by scientists.

My question is are you a naïve scientist or a person with an agenda?

Just started to read "Rationality From AI to Zombies". Thanks for the lead. I'll be waiting for your post.

Hello, I'm very interested in technological growth and how to trigger it. And what would be the role of lawyers to assist the process. Got any leads?

I am really bad at maths tho...