Transhumanism as Capitalist Continuity: Branded Bodies in the Age of Platform Sovereignty^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is one of the best discussions on transhumanism and posthumanism I have read in secondary literature.  The analysis of each movement is clearly stated and the philosophical differences are clear.   The transhumanist corporatization of the human person is extremely timely and compelling.  What I would have liked to have seen further is the posthumanist alternative to the "digital capitalism of biosubjectivity."  Posthumanism is prominent in the first half of the paper but disappears by the end, except for the brief mention in the conclusion.   The lack of developing a posthuman narrative does not detract, however, from the paper's primary thesis, aptly stated in the first part of the title:  "Transhumanism as Capitalist Continuity."   Overall, the paper offers an informative discussion and is very well done.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1, thank you sincerely for your generous, thoughtful, and high-praise feedback. I deeply appreciate your recognition of the paper’s analysis of transhumanism and its corporate entanglements, as well as your invitation to develop posthumanist alternatives.

I want to share that the theoretical and practical posthumanist vision you note as wanting further development has in fact been a central focus of my ongoing work. In response to your valuable suggestion, I have now fully integrated this material into new Sections 5 and 6, which are titled:

• 5. Theoretical Foundations for Posthumanist Alternatives and Relational Futures
  (including detailed subsections on critiques of techno-solutionism, decentering anthropocentrism, algorithmic governance, and synthesizing interdisciplinary perspectives)
• 5.5 Reconfiguring Subjectivity and Technology
• 5.6 Reimagining Techno-Subjectivity as Collective Becoming
• 5.7 Toward Open and Multispecies Futures
• 5.8 Practical Implications for Tech Design and Governance
• 6. Future Research Directions, Interdisciplinary Dialogues, and Limitations

These sections elaborate a comprehensive posthumanist narrative that directly addresses the limitations of “digital capitalism of biosubjectivity” and offer grounded pathways toward alternative modes of relational subjectivity, multispecies kinship, and ethical technological design and governance. I have also realigned the conclusion and abstract to better reflect this expanded vision, ensuring that posthumanist perspectives maintain prominence throughout the paper’s trajectory rather than being confined to the conclusion.

I hope this substantial revision addresses your constructive critique and enriches the overall contribution of the paper. Thank you again for your engagement and encouragement.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written and appropriately referenced article.

Its weakness lies is two-fold: (1) firstly, it is essentially an extensive survey of existing lines of critique of transhumanism from the perspective of the latter's entanglement with neoliberal capitalism in late technocentric modernity. Next to nothing is added in terms of argumentation beyond that which other authors have already provided in this area; and (2) secondly, it fails to consider the entanglement of critical posthumanism with neoliberal capitalism itself, opting instead to present a rather uncritical reading of critical posthumanism as oppositional to transhumanism while failing to attend to their shared ontological commitment to informationalism and its cognates (computationalism etc.) 

At a minimum, I think there is a need to address (1) by drawing out more clearly the specific contribution the author claims to be making early in the article, and (2) by recognising that critical posthumanism has been subjected to various lines of critique, e.g. by Marxists, indigenous scholars etc. and at least pointing to this body of work in order to appreciate the limits of the argument being made.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2, thank you for your detailed and critical feedback. I want to begin by directly addressing your core observation that the manuscript functions primarily as an extensive survey of existing critiques regarding transhumanism’s entanglement with neoliberal capitalism and that it contributes little new argumentation beyond what prior authors have established.

While the manuscript does situate itself within this critical tradition, it is not intended merely as a summary. Rather, it offers original contributions in several key respects, which I will outline with reference to specific sections.

First, the manuscript develops the concept of the human operating system (human OS) as a comprehensive framework that integrates multiple dimensions of platform sovereignty. As elaborated in Section 4, especially subsections 4.1 through 4.6, it synthesizes critical insights regarding attention and affect extraction (4.1), socioeconomic stratification and unequal access (4.2), corporate cross-industry ecosystems (4.3), branding and kinship dynamics (4.4), democratic erosion and corporate governance (4.5), and discrimination through algorithmic policing and eugenics (4.6). This integrated conceptualization moves beyond individual critiques by capturing the systemic and dynamic ways that transhumanist subjectivities are corporately branded and datafied within late capitalist platform ecosystems.

Second, subsection 4.7 specifically addresses intergenerational impacts and predictive control regimes, tracing how branded identities and algorithmic stigmatization cascade across family lines. This focus on kinship and social reproduction under algorithmic governance highlights an underexplored ethical and political dimension of transhumanist critiques, adding novel insight beyond standard critiques of neoliberalism and technology.

Third, subsection 4.1 and 4.4 highlight the affective and relational modalities through which platform capitalism governs not only economic behavior but social relations, loyalty, and identity. The emphasis on affect extraction and branding as mechanisms of control extends the critique into less examined domains of emotional and social governance.

Finally, the conclusion (Section 5) articulates possibilities for disrupting the human OS, pointing toward collective agency, technopolitical disobedience, and alternative techno-ethical imaginaries that challenge dominant corporate logics. This forward-looking dimension goes beyond critique to open new avenues for political and ethical engagement.

Taken together, these contributions demonstrate that while the manuscript builds on existing literature, it does so with an original conceptual synthesis and targeted focus on neglected aspects of transhumanism’s platform entanglements.

I hope this clarifies the manuscript’s original contributions and addresses your concerns about its argumentative novelty.

Thank you again for your valuable and thoughtful critique.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I very much enjoyed reading this piece - it's an unrelenting analysis with lots of key theories and ideas woven into it. My instinct with a piece like this would be to say there's too much going on, and depth is sacrificed for breadth, but I was overall impressed with the rigour and interconnectedness of ideas that are generally well-presented. 

I did, though, have some particular questions about some aspects of the analysis that I think would need addressing for the article to be of the scholarly merit that it deserves. Figure 1 (line 304) is not fully discussed or transparent - how were these datapoints plotted? Is it just the author's opinion/attitude/assertion or is it something more methodologically robust? I don't think either is problematic, but there needs to be full transparency behind models such as this. 

Just after that, lines 323-332, I was confused about what the hypothetical vignettes offer or were trying to convey. It struck me that the article is perhaps torn between present political issues brought forth by transhumanist and corporate technologies, while also stargazing and doing some sensationalist work considering dystopian futures. I wondered whether the latter was needed and if it in fact risks undermining some of the impact of the points about the political context and nuanced issues brought forth by transhumanist technologies in the here-and-now? This might also help to narrow the article somewhat, too.

Finally, I was not sure what analytical purpose the illustrative cases (lines 343-642) served. Are the three cases making the same point in different ways; if so, are they all needed? Is the author making a comparison between the three? (If so, that's very muted and needs to be brought out further.) Are the three models/brands of the human mutually exclusive? How do corporate interests intersect here, and what is the bigger impact of 'branding' for how we think of the human? I think there are some really interesting and important points here, but they could be excavated and finessed a bit further. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3, thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. I appreciate your positive assessment of the rigor and interconnectedness of the analysis, as well as your detailed questions and suggestions aimed at strengthening the manuscript’s clarity and impact.

Regarding Figure 1 (line 304), there are multiple reviewers who made similar comments on the confusion brought on by this visual representation meant to provide clarity. Given your feedback, I have removed lines 298 to 311.

On the tension between present political issues and speculative dystopian futures (lines 323–332), the inclusion of these vignettes is intentional to demonstrate how current corporate transhumanist practices have plausible trajectories that risk exacerbating existing inequalities and governance failures. These future scenarios build directly on the political-economic context outlined in Section 2.8 (“Whose Future?”), which grounds the analysis in present dynamics before extrapolating. I will revise the framing to better integrate these elements and mitigate any sense of sensationalism, emphasizing their critical, grounded purpose. I also relocated Section 2.8 to Section 3 (Illustrative Cases and Extrapolated Futures) so my argument is not missed placed in the literature review.

Concerning the illustrative cases, each case follows a deliberate three-part structure: 1) Present dynamics, 2) Future projections, and 3) Critical analysis grounded in theoretical literature (e.g., Section 3.1 and subsections). This format is designed to provide depth while connecting each case clearly to the broader arguments about branded biosubjectivity, corporate ecosystem governance, and socio-economic stratification (as elaborated in Sections 4.1 through 4.8).

To improve clarity, I will add explicit signposting at the start of Section 3 to highlight this structure and clarify that the cases are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Additionally, I will include an integrative paragraph at the end of the illustrative cases that explicitly synthesizes their shared contributions to understanding how corporate branding shapes human subjectivity and corporate power (drawing on Section 4.4 on branding and kinship dynamics, and Section 4.5 on democratic erosion).

The abstract was realigned to address your sensationalism concerns.

I trust these clarifications and planned revisions will address your concerns and enhance the manuscript’s analytical coherence and impact. Thank you again for your insightful comments.