This isn't promoting transhumanism, but instead is promoting a Traditionalist Neitzscheanism, note that it says "therefore, we should copy the conditions that allowed humanity to rise above the animals In the first place". Neither the atheist marxist, nor the conservative Christian, neither left wing, nor right wing, an ideology that embraces the half of human existence that most people reject, while not letting go of the other half in the process. Neitzsche rejected the marxists and their new world along with the Christians and their old one, we must do the same, his is the true third position, a third position of philosophy and foundational principles. We can also reject the atomized capitalism and the universalism of communism for the third path of ethnocentric fascism, which works off of Hamilton's laws of kin selection and evolutionary game theory to arrive at the conclusion that not everyone is equal, and we have a different level of moral obligation to others depending upon their genetic similarity to ourselves (in conjunction to their generational differences to ourselves). I think another flaw in our world is that we tried to apply science to questions it was never intended to answer, science is the perfect epistemological system we know of, but it is only able to come to conclusions about objective matters of fact, not subjective matters of opinion. Questions like those on morality or how one should live one's life, or how one should govern their society, all of these are not as to be answered by the scientific method. It can use things like evolution to tell us where our moral instincts come from, it can tell us what the most likely outcome of any political system or policy you can think of will be, it can tell you what will likely happen in response to any decision you make or action you take, but it can go no further than telling you what is, what was, and what will be, what you ought to do is a question with no objectively correct answer. And no, Christianity doesn't offer objective morality, either, even if you accepted all of the premises of christianity, all it can offer is the same thing that science can, they claim to have some special status in terms of questions such as those of morality, but they never attempt to establish what it is that makes their answers uniquely objective. The truth is, what they have are just another set of factual claims, "God made everything, and these are the things he'd prefer you to do". Which holds no more water than the conclusions derived from the study of evolution, which also tells us about the kinds of moral behaviors our origins expect from us. They are both equal in terms of authority and effectiveness on the basis of "objectivity". The real edge for the Christians comes not from "objectivity", but from the promise of a personally-experienced reward for abiding by their moral standards, and punishment for ignoring them or failing to live up to them, they are paying you to be what they consider to be "good" with heaven, and threatening you not to be what they consider to be "evil" with hell, they appeal to one's basic primitive instincts, to pursue pleasure/happiness and avoid pain/sorrow, but merely learning about how the human body functions in order to generate these experiences is enough to pull out the teeth of this carrot-and-stick proposal.