the question i'm going to ask today is what you posthuman and transhuman mean? i'm going to argue that they have no meaning. there is no condition that could really be described in either oe these ways. all the conditions that we see these names are either a comma impossibilities, b, deficient human conditions foresee amplifications but not changes of human nature. everything in category c is i think intrinsically permissible but some of it might be impermissible because of its side effects and much of it is impermissible in approach. that is, the ways regional to expect we could receive instances of c are often think of more impermissible. and that i will suggest at the end tells us something familiar likely future. the terms posthuman and transhuman i thought refer to a kind of being descended from or perhaps caused by or created by human beings but no longer of that species. we consider our generationsen living out and imagine various modifications and transformations of our descendents to the point at which looking forward were no'r longer willing to say tha

so it's not a posthuman, but to use a word that we find in leon's work, it's not posthuman, it's a form of dehumanization. what makes a proposed enhancement be on side of the boundary between b, the side of i dehumanization, and c, that which is intrinsically permissible even if it might be practically ill-advised or immoral in its pursuit? almost ten years ago with ryan anderson in an article edited by adam kuiper, ryan and i argued that the framework for answering this question is set by those basic goods that are con tissue bitive of human flourishing including life and health, knowledge, aesthetic experience, work, play, friendship, marriage, personal integrity and religion. each offers a foundational reason for action imcommensurable with the others, each reflects an aspect of our complex, variegate nature which has potentialities pointing in many different directions. hence, enhancement proposals and projects, the point of which is to block, damage or destroy avenues of pursuit of these basic goods, we argued, are always impermissible. and those that threaten to degrade our avenue

our posthuman future with into the future of a certain kind of machine. if there were entities of any of these three swords they would legitimately deserve to be called host or transhuman it as i think human beings are living animals and hence material beings whose form is nevertheless, an immaterial and intellect so which is not identical to the person that any of us is. this description gives us the essence of what we are, rational animals. anything that is not a rational animal cannot one of us and none of the three possibilities just mentioned would or could be rational animals. therefore they would that be one of us. so then could they constitute a different kind of person? rational beings that were not rational animals. i think the answer is no fight it recognize these three imagine outcomes as real possibilities. no material persons could by their nature be immortal because we are bodily beings. we thus contain inevitable seas of her own dk anticline. said no animal in this world is immortal and no immortal thing in this world is an animal or indee