Firstly, while this will appear "Necromancy" from bringing up an old thread, the actual post here isn't related to previous posts in the thread, it's actually related to a concept/discussion that Captain Kremmen has kicked out (possibly without knowing the depths of what he's started here) but none the less the discussion should have some discussion.
There is more than one way to "Skin a Cyborg" (That actually means putting a skin on, not taking it off) and Transhumanism to my knowledge is not one fixated directive but an attempt to get many different professionals, with many different professions attempting to head towards a similar goal.
The reason for narrowing the goal, is due to the notion that if we all go about doing our own thing, there is potentials for what is called a "Duplication of Effort". This is where independent people or bodies, do the similar if not the same type of thing without having connection with one another. This means that resources are split between both operations to achieve practically the same thing.
This is one of the main concerns in technology and the main reason why vast consortium's (Industry Standard Organisation) are made between manufacturers that attempt to follow an Industry Standard. This means rather than having multiple research groups doing the same thing independently, organising information between each allows each body to either concentrate on sub components of an overall research with more detail or to do a completely different research that would have otherwise had to wait to be done.
Now saying this doesn't define that Science as a whole doesn't have this standardising body, as technically it does. (There are Science Research Council's that deal with attempting to get everyone in alignment with longer-term goals and also attempts to pool the funding and then organise how it's divided out, so just remember that if you are a scientist that's purposely dragging their heels in regards to getting results up until the research funding dries out, as that money could well have been spent on other research projects.)
The problem of course is that while there are many organisations that are a party to such councils, there are a lot of independent companies and clandestine government operations that are not apart of such organisations scopes. This means money can be misspent on doing things that are technically already done (and likely already reported to the council as being done)
In essence if everything was streamlined, then the future that people depict is a goal that is not just achievable but closer to being achieved.
So this brings me to the point of Kremmen's post:
I think we will use gene therapy in preference to hitching ourselves up to machinery. I hope we become more human rather than posthuman.
I would be pessimistic about the length of longevity that can be offered through Gene Therapy, this doesn't mean that I would suggest it's a waste of time or effort and the likes of Aubrey de Grey are following the wrong path. I would merely suggest that depending on the longevity that you are looking to accomplish would define the direction you attempt to take.
I mean it's very much like picking the right tool for the right job, if you want to add a couple of decades to your life and increase your overall health, then to me Gene therapy is one way to go. If however you are interested in extending your "life" indefinitely and have ulterior goals, then this is where Post-human becomes machine.
Ulterior goals for me ("me" being egocentric) is actually trying to help everyone else (Pancentric). It can be stated that I don't know as much as I would like to know and I'm not trained in the things that I believe would aid. In essence this are statements of my limitations, limitations we all have and even with Gene therapy we'd still likely have.
So for me to overcome these limitations the only possible direction I can see is via a slow but definite migration from Man thru (through) Cyborg to Machine. Obviously such a goal has many potential problems for the machine stage to deal with, like for instance being emulated with the absence of an environment or people around you, since technically they wouldn't exist in the machine to begin with either.
Ideally the later stage would be this:
Exist as an entity which the embodiment of is completely artificial in construct, with the capacity to interact with the world in which the embodiment exists through the usage of Robotic Avatars (Biological's can technically be used, however this generates an Ethical and Moral problem as questions like "What is an individual?" or "Who are 'we'?" might get raised.)
While it would be nice to take a body out for a spin once in a while if in a machine state, I think I would probably suggest a more subtle approach, requiring volunteer surrogates that would maintain their independence but I would become like a Mnemonic interactive very similar to a Cyberpunk plot line that W. Gibson or B. Sterling might well have envisioned, where constructs of deceased hackers continue to attempt to aid others with the knowledge of their exploits.
(There is then the potential for various groups attempting to speed up their eventual goals by supporting individual's through this manner, imagine you no longer have to be a mathematic's wizard to move in that direction for a scholarship, instead you just have to be apart of a particular group, organisation or directive and receive the support in the form of Mnemonic advancement and Artificial Intelligence pairing, so the sums aren't done necessarily by you but the systems that encompass you.)
You might point out, "well that's great, but how's that pancentric?", well if Robotic avatar's are used it's possible to operate them on jobs that humans wouldn't be able to do because of hostile environments. It might be somewhere like the depths of a volcano or ocean, a nuclear site or a completely different planet with no atmosphere.
People can control drones right now (as proven by deep sea surveying submarines or military drones for surveillance) however because the interface isn't directly integrated into our nerve systems, their is potentially time delays and the potential for being cumbersome in how it's controlled.
Cybernetics is looking at the integration with nerves, but again the limitations are down to the inability to adapt to new interfaces. (In fact there is a suggested problem with over re-adapting to deal with given scenarios like playing different games with different button combinations, where it can produce a similar condition to Post Traumatic Stress from the body trying to re-adapt too much.)
Being "served" on a machine would allow complete integration at the base level with various technologies, adaption would be something that could be "Learnt" over time while a machine and wouldn't suffer the conditions a biological would suffer from (Especially if there is a team on hand to correct any issues)