I agree, at least from an evolutionary perspective.
What then is "health"? Is it "the proper operation of the body," as the dictionary defines it? But what is "proper operation" when the human body is in a perpetual state of transformation? Why do some scientists work to restore "proper operation" of the body, while others deny that such a thing exists?
Additionally, why is the act of preventing a child from dying of disease a rupture of the rubric of natural selection? Hasn't the human brain evolved to promote our survival, as in this example? So why not continue to "evolve" our brains "forward" as the transhumanists seek to do? Aren't they working for our survival as a species?
It's not a rupture of the rubric of natural selection. It's a break in the point of natural selection. If the kid dies we eliminate of chain of people that are highly susceptible to that disease, by saving the kid's life we are perpetuating that weakness. There's a lot of bad side effects to that, my wife's family is a great example, every generation has lower and lower standard health, has to take more and more prescription medicines just to reach adulthood, and then they pass those weaknesses on to the next generation. Eventually there's got to be a meltdown point.
So since we've been tinkering with genetics on accident for centuries there could be a good reason to tinker deliberately. The problem is when to say when. Using genetic modification to get rid of things like sickle cell and asthma are probably good. Cosmetic alterations would definitely be bad. Somewhere in between there is the line, not sure where though.
"Aren't they working for our survival as a species?"
These wierd folks are just nutcases. They dream of a day when they "shed their human bodies," and are pure intellect.
They're like folks who believe that Star Trek is non-fiction.
Forget them. They're no more a news story than Alice in Wonderland is.