Some are primed to blanch at transhumanism; Some are primed to accept a class-based social hierarchy as simply mundane and not an ethical issue.
Every new privilege granted to the top socioeconomic class is an appropriate opportunity to ask the question "why solve this problem instead of improving peoples' lives by tackling inequality?" The answer can be that one is simply working on what one is good at. However that answer doesn't mean the question is silly or appropriate to sideline.
What does the fact that some people may not be able to immediately afford the latest innovations have to do with accepting a "class-based social hierarchy", or recognizing any social hierarchy at all?
Who is 'granting' any 'privileges' to anyone - where do these kinds of notions even come from?
Reducing the particulars of actual people's real lives to instances of abstract categories is silly, inappropriate, and insulting; if you know someone who you think would benefit from this device, but who can't afford to buy one, then you can buy one for him yourself. If you know many such people, you can start a foundation to buy them for people, and contribute your own energies to developing even lower-cost open-spec implementations, a la Raspberry Pi.
There are plenty of actual solutions you can pursue when you address problems within the particulars of their own contexts. But those who instead prefer merely to dawdle with abstractions, propose preemptive universal-scope policies, and cast people's real circumstances into arbitrary taxonomies are themselves the one promoting some kind of "class-based social hierarchy".
"tackling inequality" can be achieved in many ways. One of these ways could, counterintuitively, be creating an effective way to produce more elites. If your training program / intelligence amplification technology created another Norman Borlaug or Henry Ford or Bill Gates, you might have had a greater impact on the lower socioeconomic class than if you had managed to invent a new vaccine yourself.
I don't understand how you can look at a $90 kit and call it "a new privilege granted to the top socioeconomic class". It's not a $400 smartness pill or a million dollar brain upgrade. It's a reusable $90 device that increases the benefits of hard work.
I'd certainly expect that to have an impact on social inequality, but not in the direction of increasing it.
Every new privilege granted to the top socioeconomic class is an appropriate opportunity to ask the question "why solve this problem instead of improving peoples' lives by tackling inequality?" The answer can be that one is simply working on what one is good at. However that answer doesn't mean the question is silly or appropriate to sideline.