It assumes that consciousness is a thing which arises from biological processes for one thing. That is a perfectly good hypothesis but a lousy conclusion without further linkage.
Obviously my consciousness is greatly diminished or at least altered when asleep or given ether or when suffering a stroke and most especially post mortem - as far as anyone can tell by whatever correlates are chosen. But is that because changes of state, damage and death cause the production of consciousness to cease or is it simply a fact that consciousness which we don’t really understand can’t be present for some other reason under those conditions. In other words, we don’t know that the body does or can produce it, it may simply provide the necessary conditions for something entirely separate to manifest under the right conditions. It isn’t the most convenient hypothesis but it upsetting other assumptions doesn’t logically rule it out.
Regarding:
I admit politics is an area of vast regions of ignorance for me. I don’t have a clear picture of what that phrase “utilitarian technocracy” is supposed to mean. But I dissed it since it brings together two terms which separately I have a negative reaction to.