Evolution isn't about such things; distinction between species happens when the differences are extreme enough that the populations become distinct enough that they seperate, and stay seperate.
Okay, I agree. Evolution isn't about hard lines. That's my argument - that in order to say, "This isn't human anymore", you need to have that line, at least with transhumanism where at any given point, your basic human stock will always be modifiable to what you call "post-human". There will
never be that divergence, no matter how many differences there are between human A and cyborg B. I wouldn't say a chimpanzee is human, but it never
was. You're arguing that entities will lose their humanity at some point, and I want to know what that is.
What I'm saying is that you seem to be either saying something so obvious as to be pointless (transhumanism would involve radical changes to humanity at every level, from the physical to the mental), or something completely arbitrary, as far as I can tell (that this means "extinction"). If you're making that claim, I'd really like to know the definition of humanity that justifies it.
I have a metal plate in my leg. It provided me with a superior ability to heal a fracture in a bone, greater than what nature would allow. I claim that I am still human, and I hope you'd agree. But if you do, I want to know where the line
you draw is, because it seems to me that there's only a difference of magnitude between that, and the various Superman powers you describe as being clearly inhuman.
@LB
Fair enough, I will watch the video when I have the time. That said, while perhaps I may not be arguing with your intended claims, I am arguing with what you're
saying. If you think the problem is that I misunderstand what you're claiming, then you need to work on clarity - otherwise, watching the video will only result in confusion, as it will seem a nonsequitur.