This piece by Edward Hudgins in the latest Atlas Society newsletter is a pre-review of a book by Zoltan Istvan

In this short piece, Hudgins briefly addresses the central argument in Istvan's book.
He also address the argument of Wesley Smith a conservative detractor of both Istvan's argument and of Transhumanism in general.

It is not clear whether Istvan is making a case that Transhumanism is a beneficial movement.
Smith makes the case that Transhumanism is not beneficial because it is inherently selfish.
Hudgins makes the case that Transhumanism is not only beneficial but compatible with Objectivism precisely because it is selfish.

I find Transhumanism disconcerting.
Aristotle speaks of form and function being integral to each other.
He also speaks of human ethics being integral to this form and function.
Ayn Rand resurrected Aristotle's approach to ethics: "man qua man".

As an Objectivist, I believe that Aristotle and Rand are correct in their approach to the question of human ethics.
Marxists consider men evil and imperfect because men are not and yet should be ants, bees, or some other collective hive-mind insect.
Smith considers the Transhumanist possibility of immortality to be selfish because men are and should be plants which must "go to seed".
Transhumanists consider "man" to be a phase which man is passing through.
None of these lines of thought address the Objectivist ethical tenet of "man qua man".

Transhumanism strikes me as inherently Nietzschean.
If the Transhumanist possibility of immortality succeeds, then we would no longer be longer "men".
It is not only humanism which will have been transformed, but according to Nietzsche and Aristotle our values as well.
What then would be our ethic?

My concern is not of a Luddite nature.
It is more "Popeye" - "I am what I am".

Your comments are welcome.