I didn't even realise there was a term for this, but I generally agree with the ideas put forth.
There are two main objections that I can think of and that some on this thread stated.
First, the notion that there's something inherently 'wrong' in this; in a (not very explicable) moral sense, we're messing with 'humanity' on a fundamental level. This is a pretty weak argument if you think about it for more than 5 seconds; the fact is that we already utilise pacemakers to keep people's hearts running, prosthetics to let them walk, hearing aids to help them hear, and so on and so forth. Why are all those perfectly legitimate, but not having a neural implant to help dyslexics read better? And if you do that, why not an implant to help us all to calculate faster? Why not augment us so that we're less likely to have heart failure, or liver problems, or diabetes, if the technologies are available? Mass technology is moving towards that anyway; if an alien visited Earth and saw someone making a phone call on Google Glasses, for example, they'd probably think we're a telepathic species. And, thanks to technology, to some extent we are!
The second objection is generally concern at the practical repercussions of such technology. Such discussions, however, are necessarily based entirely on speculation. It's impossible to form a cogent argument until and unless concrete technologies with measurable impact and costs are developed. For example, take the concern about creating a divided society as only a privileged few will be able to afford the technology. The same objection could have been made about mobile phones when they were first developed. Nowadays, though, mobiles are so widespread and ubiquitous that even the poorest peoples in developing countries have one, and they've actually been a great tool for reducing inequality.
I, for one, do not object to a future where technology continues to make us and our world better in every way possible.