Okay, the point he made about how an emotionless world would be more productive really struck a cord with me, in a type of "please don't strike that cord, its the wrong one" way.
Nothing would get done in an emotionless world because then we wouldn't have vital emotions such as curiosity and interest, how are we supposed to have the motivation to do anything without those vital emotions. We would literally just stand around, eating and sleeping, nothing else. We wouldn't care about anything apart from basic drives.
Also, what about alarm and panic? We would die pretty easily if we couldn't feel those emotions as they are built in for protective and safety reasons.
Then we have the more generalized emotions such as hope and fear, love and joy. These emotions are just as vital as they almost provide logical thought and a deeper sense of mind. Providing us with intelligence on a less academic level.
Of course I'm sure he didn't mean all emotions (unless he did, then what I have wrote has completely destroyed his argument), but the point I am trying to convey is that all emotions are positive, they have been built into our genetics for our own good (though it is arguable that some emotions are more nurture, rather than nature). Emotions are there for a reason, taking them away.....well, its almost impossible for us to fathom what type of world that would be, but it sure wouldn't be a utopia, it would be more of a death sentence for humanity (in a symbolic manner of course).
As for continuous work and development, but still having free will.....well lets just say he is right and we no longer have emotions in this scenario, how would we gain the motivation to care about others if we only rely on instinct? Instinct dictates that we only care about our own well being, also our children but thats straying from the point.