What came first: the chicken or the egg? Don’t be foolish, the egg (a cell) will always come first. It is not necessary for a complex multi-cellular creature to discard a single cell in hopes of procreation. It is reasonable for one cell to undergo asexual reproduction or to mutate all together into a new and different structure. Commonly used as an argument to stir debate over creationism vs. evolution, the chicken and the egg, as any logical example favors evolution. The fact that the egg begins as a single cell and becomes a chicken, or that a seed begins as a single cell and becomes a tree, does not necessitate the need for the chicken or the tree to precede its’ seed. We can observe daily instance where something does not replicate as it should and becomes something else. Also we can observe in short time frames how one small cell continues to divide into a complex organism. How then can we ignore those observations and assume something complex must have created something simple? To fall on the tired argument of creationism is to deprive the glory of the creator. The intricate processes of life’s growth, the desire to survive and compete, is far more astounding a creation than the nonsensical magic of spontaneous existence.
It may surprise you to learn that you are not (necessarily) human. No, in fact you are Homo sapiens sapiens. Human is just a nickname we have given ourselves to elevate us above all other animals. Even more surprising is that you may not actually even be a Homo sapiens! Yes, in fact there are still some Homo sapiens cohabitating this planet with us, but many of us have evolved into Homo sapiens fata. This initial fork will see further splits in our subspecies; Homo sapiens futurum technicae, Homo sapiens sidereal and possibly even Homo sapiens oceanus, of course they may all just call themselves human too. As not to let their egos confuse them with apes. All of this opens an interesting question, if human does not describe what we are, then what is humanity? By definition, which I find a bit vague, it is everything that is the human condition.
By definition, Humans, being all extant subspecies of Homo sapiens, then our current transitioning cousins and their offspring are by definition as human as we are now (only so much as they and we act the part.) In fact by a strict definition, the more evolved cousins may be more human. Any new psychological phenomenon commonly adopted is then inherently human as well. The literal term “human” is fairly new, as is the knowledge of our species in comparison to the deep evolutionary history of our ancestry. Human can be attributed to wherever the current evolutionary date fell when that hominid spoke in general terms about all others like itself. The same is equally true for future timelines. In the near future we may openly acknowledge the divide between the Homo sapiens pertinax and Homo sapiens transcenderunt. Either of the two would have equal right to call themselves human and their conditions humanity, at least for sometime. As time progresses the term human will follow the surviving subspecies; hence it can be assumed to one day transcend the Homo sapiens subspecies all together.
The term Transhuman then also needs closer analysis. It seems that with a closer look at the true definition of human and its common misinterpretation, that transhuman by association is also commonly misinterpreted. The common perception of Transhumanism being a process of mechanizing/robotizing the body and mind of the homo sapiens. This more suitably being labeled as transbiological rather than transhumanic. The inherent goals, motivations and condition of those adapting to a technological future do not differ but extend from their hominid ancestry. Therefore they are no less human, although at some point may no longer be biological are wholly representative of a bipedal mammals (i.e. prosthetic enhancements that outperform traditional limbs.)
Will we someday ask the question: what came first the structure or the nanobot? Of course not, as humanity evolves ignorance will cease to be one of its characteristics. Being a Homo Sapiens Sapiens is no more a sufficient justification for something to be human than is being a Homo Sapiens transcenderunt. The key to being human lays in your choice actions not your biology, we often refer to people whose behavior falls outside of expected norms to be inhumanly good or bad, correctly speaking they are. It is not what we are born as, or what we become through enhancement that defines our humanity. At a certain point where we attributed the point of consciousness and determination over actions is when we started to and continue to attribute the term human. However not just exclusively to any self-determination but those who use it to continually better themselves and acknowledge their need to do so. The term transhuman does not properly define the perfectly human intent of the movement, a more apt description is transbiological as “transhumanist” do not aim to become unhuman in condition just transbiological in design, a move to better themselves and their known flaws.