Sorry for the double post, but this is more of a substantive contemplation of the K shell than a quick reply to a mistake that's being made.
First off, it seems to me that you are drawing from (and confusing) several philosophical influences that don't play nicely with each other. There are at least 3 for starters - the criticism of technological thinking comes from late Heidegger (by way of McWhorter's interpretation of A Question Concerning Technology
), the arguments about otherization are sort of a [censored] offshoot of Levinas' ethical writing, and the idea of commodifying and devaluing people largely parallels Agamben's arguments about the state of exception. Unfortunately, while Agamben was influenced by Heidegger and you can harmonize their thinking to a limited extent, Levinas and Heidegger's writings are basically impossible to reconcile (indeed, policy debaters often cite Levinas for arguments against Heidegger).
If you want to make ontological
arguments about the technologization of relations between beings and how attempts to manage these relation commodify people and make them targets for oppression or outright extermination, Heidegger-by-way-of-McWhorter is likely to provide some very good material. McWhorter released a new edition
of Heidegger and the Earth
last year (2009); I found the first edition both interesting and very useful for debate and would recommend the second edition highly.
If you want to make ethical
arguments about the responsibility of people and societies toward the Other, I would suggest reading Levinas and avoiding Heidegger's writings as a major source of argumentation on the subject. Again, the two thinkers are basically impossible to reconcile in theory and were impossible to reconcile in person. I cannot point you to anything particularly useful on this front, because I lack even limited familiarity with the relevant literature.