The story of a double erasure, misappropriation, and more.

Why metahumanism opposes transhumanism, what it really is, where it comes from, and how it is  evolving.

Shedding light on persistent confusions around Del Val’s vs. Sorgner’s positions, and on the problems with Sorgner’s use of the term.

by Jaym* del Val

Citation:   Del Val, Jaym*. 2023. “Clarifying Metahumanism. The story of a double erasure, misappropriation, and more. Why metahumanism opposes transhumanism, what it really is, where it comes from, and how it is evolving. Shedding light on persistent confusions around Del Val’s vs. Sorgner’s positions, and on the problems with Sorgner’s use of the term.” Online: Metabody.

12th November 2023 – (updated 20th november, version 1.3)




After many years of persistent misunderstandings on metahumanism, as one of the authors of the 2010 text A Metahumanist Manifesto and as the promoter of the philosophy of metahumanism, I feel the urgency to clarify these misunderstandings, which I see recurring on at least two fundamental issues:

  1. Where the novel concepts of the 2010 Manifesto come from and how it has evolved.
  2. What metahumanism is or can be, and what it cannot be about.


Authors like Janina Loh, in her book on Post- and Transhumanism (Loh 2018) have expressed puzzlement on the fact that the numerous neologisms and concepts appearing in the 2010 “A Metahumanist Manifesto” signed by myself and Stefan L. Sorgner, looked like momentary fulgurations that were appearing from nowhere and which seemed to have no further evolution after.

As I already expressed to this author after reading her already published text, this wrong impression was due to the fact that she was considering only Stefan Sorgner’s writing, in which indeed such concepts had never appeared before, and had no evolution or substantial elaboration afterwards.

The problem here is that Loh, like others, have missed the fact that all of these concepts and neologisms (over 15, including: metahuman, metabody, relational body, common body, frontier body, amorphogenesis, postanatomical body, microsex, metasex, postqueer, metaformativity, metaformance, panchoreographic, capitalism of affects as bipolitical metasystem of control, politics of movement, immanentism, microrecherche) were instead coming from my philosophical work since at least 2002 (see Del Val 2021a), and have continued to be even more substantially developed in my work till today in over 100 essays[1] and my large monograph Ontohackers (Del Val 2023c forthcoming).

Metahuman was indeed a concept I had advanced in 2009, and when Stefan proposed me to do together a Posthuman Manifesto for the next conference in 2010, I proposed instead to work on a metahuman one (also because I knew there existed already a Posthuman Manifesto by Robert Pepperell from 2005[2]) and synthesised into the first draft many of the novel concepts I had been developing over the previous eight years so that the manifesto became an actual synthesis of my philosophical proposals, a draft which got little changes or additions from Stefan (for instance adding perspectivism to immanentism and some terminology changes such as anthropoi, or using metahumanist instead of metahuman in the title). We gave it a final correction together on the ship from Lesvos to Turkey -this crucial border zone- where a first improvised reading happened at the theatre of the Pergamon akropolis before the public presentation at the 2nd Beyond Humanims Conference in Mytilene during the following days.

Evidence of these facts has already been documented in my essay  “The Dances of Becoming and the Metahumanist Manifesto. Its genealogy, evolution and relevance 10 years after” (Del Val 2021a) for the Posthuman Studies Reader edited by Evi Sampanikou and Jan Stasienko (Sampanikou and Stasienko 2021), where some light on this issue was at last shed, and which has an extended version online[3], where the genealogy of the concepts before the 2010 Manifesto and their later evolution till 2020 is clarified; along with the republishing of my 2009 essay “Metahuman” (Del Val 2021b), which is actually the text of my 2009 presentation in Belgrade at the 1st Beyond Humanism Conference, one year before A Metahumanist Manifesto.

But where does the confusion come from? How is it possible that my colleague and other commentators have missed all the core and novel concepts of metahumanism, their source, and my position on this issue? If one analyses discussions on metahumanism in diverse earlier publications promoted mainly by Sorgner and colleagues (Ranisch and Sorgner 2014; Deretic and Sorgner 2016; amongst others) there is no reference to the fact that the philosophy of metahumanism is rooted in my concepts, besides my artistic practices, instead I am presented as the artist of the duo, and Stefan as the philosopher, a vision that contributes to erase the real genealogy of the philosophy of metahumanism. The responsibility however I put on Sorgner, who was obviously aware of the question.

What metahumanism is/is not

In the mentioned texts by Sorgner and collaborators metahumanism is persistently presented as “in between post- and transhumanism”, a vision that I have insistently opposed since very much the beginning and increasingly so, till more recently characterizing metahumanism as in a most profound opposition to transhumanism (Del Val 2022, Tuncel 2023). In my own writings on the subject I have always clarified that there are two counterposed visions here, Stefan’s and my own. But my position has, as far as I know, never been mentioned in the mentioned texts by Sorgner and others on the subject, which in my view is problematic in relation both to pluralism and to the genealogy of metahumanism, texts which have also never discussed, or even mentioned and properly cited any of the many metahumanist concepts whose elaboration is to be found in many of my writings: this is extraordinary to say the least. Why this double erasure? Why this persistent erasure of both the genealogy of the concepts and the fact of the two diverse and counterposed positions, in favour of bringing metahumanism closer to transhumanism while diluting its originality, radicality, and novelty?

The confusions seem to be persisting in exactly the same problematic direction with the new book Metahumanism, Euro-Transhumanism and Sorgner’s Philosophy. Technology, Ethics, Art[4] edited by Aura Elena Schussler and Maurizio Balistreri, with 25 contributions by different authors, within a series edited by Sorgner himself, in a publishing house seemingly devoted to transhumanist topics,  where metahumanism is the most prominent term featuring in the title and in the third part, though there seem to be actually no substantial or specific elaborations on it (in spite of my writing to the editors asking for clarifications I haven’t so far had reply nor access to the text), instead there is a vague association of it to an “euro-transhumanism” or a “weak transhumanism” and, of course to Sorgner in general, me and my positions, as well as the actual concepts of metahumanism being, as far as I know, entirely absent from the publication.

Indeed the only article of that book getting close to the topic seems to be Natasha Beranek’s “The Metahumanities” where she focuses on Sorgner’s account of these as “a further development of the traditional humanities through the inclusion of non-dualistic insights” following Sorgner’s inclusion of the metahumanities “as one of the twelve pillars of the transhumanist movement” in his book On Transhumanism. Again a onesided account, whereby the responsibility here is not so much in the authors echoing Sorgner, but in the erasure of the genealogy happening in Sorgner’s writings.

I have asked the editors and publisher for clarifications and for corrections, citing the appropriate references for, at least, the fact that metahumanism has two conunterposed visions and that its philosophy has been developed in my writings, without reply so far.

This book is another example of questionable, indeed unacceptable academic practices that contribute to the erasure of factual stories in favour of incorrect and distorted narratives, in spite of the several dear colleagues participating in the volume whom I consider exempt of all responsibility and probably ignorant of the problem here expressed.

Evolution, and the “decisive moment” of metahumanism

Since 2021 significant new turns have been happening to my proposals on Metahumanism, with the radical critique of transhumanism as trash-humanism and hyperhumanism and the new metahuman pragmatics (Del Val 2022, Tuncel 2023), along with the proposal of a new set of Metahuman Futures Forums, of Metahuman Studies and Metahumanities (Del Val 2023b)[5], which, along the new European Project I am coordinating[6], is evolving with a series of publications, notoriously the first Metahuman Futures special Issue in the Journal of Posthumanism (Dedeoglu and del Val eds 2023; Del Val and Dedeoglu 2023)[7] and the new Metahuman Futures Manifesto from 2022 (Del Val and MFF Lesvos Assembly-Chorus 2023)[8] as well as the Liveable Futures Initiative[9] and report (Del Val 2023a).

Particularly the new Metahuman Futures Manifesto, a collective effort with the Lesvos MFF Assembly, has been qualified by some scholars as the “decisive moment” of metahumanism (Sampanikou 2023) where it gets rid of the excessive ambiguities of the 2010 Manifesto, which allowed it to be more easily instrumentalised, taking on a new more committed and radical, and less elitist stance.

Here the counterposition with transhumanism is more sharply defined, exposing the way in which:

  1. transhumanism is a core current expression of a human supremacist tradition and of trash-humanism and hyperhumanism;
  2. transhumanism (including the “critical” discourses which assume it, proposing a “more ethical” version) biases debates by focusing on sensationalist hyperhumanist topics of enhancement, AI, cyborgs, or genetics, that are taking the attention away from much more pressing issues, like the ecological crises, grounded on the animal holocaust and overpopulation, topics that transhumanism only contributes to worsening, falsifying the debates on the challenges that humanity and 8.7 million species are facing, thus contributing to denialism;
  3. sometimes disguised as false pluralism, transhumanism defends the privileges of an eurowhite WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic) elite, where “plurality” is never meant for the totality of the living or even of humans, but of preserving the privilege of certain subjects to have access to a world that is at their disposal, even if this implies driving with the foot on the accelerator on the highway to extinction;
  4. even critical posthumanism falls short by not going far enough in the diagnose and critique nor in the creative counterproposals (del Val 2022 and 2023b), hence the URGENT NEED for a metahuman alternative that should by no means get diluted by vaguely mixing it up with its enemy, Transhumanism!

What it is not

In this regard the position taken by Sorgner should not, in my opinion, be called metahumanist, it is perhaps a weak transhumanism and/or weak posthumanism, as Sorgner already seems to suggests when describing metahumanism in On Transhumanism and other places: aiming to propose some transhuman-friendly critical-ethical discussions that weaken the critique of critical posthumanism by aiming to bring it closer to transhumanism, justifying it, and reproducing the problematic assumption of inevitability of the hyperhumanist tendencies defended by transhumanism, based yet again on the denialism of the extinction crisis.

Sorgner’s description of Metahumanism in On Transhumanism (Sorgner 2020), as “bringing together” “weak” versions of transhumanism and posthumanism”, is another significant example of the double erasure and distorsion denounced above. It is significant that the chapter where this is elaborated is entitled “Pedigrees of Metahumanism, Posthumanism, and Transhumanism” while it is significantly contributing to an erasure and distorsion of the actual genealogies. The same grave distorsions appear in “We Have always been cyborgs” (Sorgner 2022b).

Take another example, of the “metahumanities”, which I previously mentioned, defended by Sorgner as pillar of transhumanism. In an extremely confusing turn the term gets associated to transhumanism (Sorgner 2023) and incorporates what was already a critical posthumanist idea, non-dualities, while ignoring the core novel aspects of metahumanism and of my philosophy (the only specific metahumanist philosophy I know of) instead. In earlier definitions (Sorgner 2015) metahumanities were about putting at the same level genetic engineering and formal education, as we jointly proposed in the 2010 manifesto (Del Val and Sorgner 2010).

But what about the specific core aspects of metahumanist philosophy? Is this all that Sorgner “elaborates” on Metahumanism? And why at all call it metahumanities and not (weak) post/transhumanities? Why do this erasure and one-sided appropriation of an idea coopting it and emptying it from its specificity and erasing its real sources and dimensions?

The topics that Sorgner identifies with metahumanism or metahumanities, as for instance non-dualist perspectives, are already inherent in critical posthumanism and miss per se the novelty of metahumanism instead, whose movement, becoming, and body philosophy, and more sharply critical philosophy, unfolds in my work since 2002.

There are furthermore important contradictions and inconsistencies in associating metahumanism to transhumanism as this cannot be done without erasing the core aspects of the 2010 Metahumanist manifesto: the embracing of indeterminacy and amorphousness, of the moving body and relational becomings, all of which are in direct opposition to Transhumanism’s thrust for control, dominion, and its perpetuation of a  long tradition of body despisers, which also makes the association between Nietzsche and transhumanism implausible if not aberrant.

This extends to a superficial use of the meta- prefix, which Sorgner uses only in one of its meanings, as in-between, but only to claim the spurious position of metahumanism in-between trans and posthumanism, ignoring instead the far deeper meanings with which I use the term in multiple forms (metahuman, metabody, metaformance, etc.) as implying both a relational ontology and an ontology of becoming: symbiotic mutation or relational variation as the deep meaning implied in the prefix, which I have recently elaborated, through the concept of metabiosis, as a theory of the living (Del Val 2023c).

Equally Philosophy of Posthuman Art (Sorgner 2022a) lacks any reference to my elaboration since 2010 of a specific theory of metahuman aesthetics of metaformance (Del Val 2012 and 2011), while the reference to my work in the corresponding subchapter is wrongly described as “video” (not even performance!… even less metaformance, as it should).

Another note. Already back in 2014 there appeared a Wikipedia article on metahumanism of which Stefan sent me notice once it had already appeared, yet again, published without my intervention. I expressed to Stefan my wish to correct its onesidedness adding my vision, shared with him my proposal for correcting the text, and, …Hush!… the article disappeared from Wikipedia on the day I was going to edit it, supposedly due to wicked conservative editors… Whatever this means it also means that I have been expressing my discomfort with onesidedness to my colleague since over nine years, apparently with no effect.

Moreover during all these years we kept in ongoing collaboration coordinating all the Beyond Humanism Conferences, me having been the only person present in all of them, conferences where I was the only one presenting metahumanist topics, elaborating its new philosophy in front of everyone’s eyes, paper by paper and year by year (something that all authors in the field should have taken note of, but often that which is too new or too “visionary” is also less visible, less comprehensible… hence all the more needed of protection from erasure!…).

What it is

Metahumanism (as proposed by me, especially in its current evolutions) is a current that goes beyond critical posthumanism while opposing transhumanism, in at least two ways: by radicalising the critique and the many still prevailing human supremacist aspects within critical posthumanism (Del Val 2022, Tuncel 2023, Sampanikou 2023), and by taking further the inventiveness needed for the replies (Del Val 2023b and 2023c), in relation to my proposal for a Radical Movement Philosophy and my ever evolving Metabody practices, which state that regaining the moving body and embracing indeterminacy are the unavoidable keys for undoing the extinction crisis, liberating all life forms from human dominion, undoing our planetary impact, becoming again one of the 8.7 million species, which is the only way to contribute again to evolution and biodiversity which human supremacism has paralysed. RMP is having its full elaboration in my monograph Ontohackers (Del Val 2023c), which is called to be the full elaboration of a metahumanist philosophy and pragmatics, while the aesthetico-political practices are taking new turns in the current EU project I coordinate, Bodynet-Khoros[10], based on the previous one, Metabody[11].

Metahumanities also find their full elaboration in my proposal for Metahuman Studies and the Metahuman Futures Forum (Del Val 2023b) as a radical undoing of all human supremacist premises of trash-human dominion on Earth, and as a movement philosophy that allows to redefine knowledge beyond human supremacist academic frameworks, for a reinvention of dominant ways of living towards a liberation of all life forms.

After many years of persistent confusions I feel the need to shed further clarity on this issue hoping for citational correctness in future by any colleagues, academics or non academics dealing with metahumanism, avoiding the grave distorsions and unacceptable practices that on this issue have been hitherto happening.

If there are to be multiple counterposed versions of metahumanism this can only happen as long as all parts acknowledge the others fully. Furthermore, Sorgner’s claims on metahumanism should be elaborated more consistently in face of the present critiques, if they are to hold together. Most importantly, metahumanism’s dilution with, or appropriation by transhumanism, is not acceptable as, besides other considerations, it implies erasing what seems to be the radical critical alternative to the still prevailing human supremacism and denialism by which trans/trash/humans, and even many critical posthumanists, keep having their foot on the accelerator on the highway to extinction.

Epilogue: a personal note

Given the 27 years of friendship let me add a personal note, dear Stefan.

I have been over nine years clearly expressing to you my discomfort with your doings on this issue, without success.

The reason why I took so long to speak up is because I was acting in good faith, trusting someone I have/had been considering a friend and an ethical person and thinker; because it was unthinkable to me that such a thing could happen; because I was hoping that it was some misunderstanding; because I was hoping to get ethical reactions from you; because I was too naively and deeply busy developing my own metahumanist ideas and practices; and because I do search for pluralism… but this implies resisting abuses. For all these years I have been hoping for, even if only, citational correctness from you. But in vain. Years go by and I see no change.

As I have told you sometimes, we have been growing in opposite directions, me towards metahumanist becomings in activism, philosophy and the arts, you towards transhumanism… and the search for power.

All these book series and publications you edit, these propaganda platforms of trashumanism, have been used as loudspeakers for a betrayal of metahumanism, series of which I was always excluded and where I never even partook in any definition of the term, even when you knew I would be against…. This has a name: power abuse, confidence abuse, and intellectual misappropriation.

I wonder if there is also an issue of academic supremacism, of someone very framed inside the academy, towards someone like me who does philosophy from outside the academy, hence speaking up more freely, though collaborating continuously with multiple universities, particularly through the large-scale projects I coordinate, and accumulating more academic writings and merits than many who are inside the academic cage.

Even in absence of collaborative friendship your responsibility as editor in all those compilations was an objective representation of perspectives that has never been the case. Your supposed defence of pluralism seems not to hold true.

Let weak trans-/posthumanism be what it is without confusing it with things it is not. Or find yourself your own new term! In face of a real pluralism and a non paternalistic coexistence of critical and creative proposals Metahumanism needs to be affirmed in its unique specificity.

And most importantly, lets stop erasing and distorting the genealogies and the contents, especially if one really defends a non-paternalistic, non-abusive, non-appropriative, and pluralistic scenario for the post-trans-metahumanities.

Your claims on metahumanism, and as metahumanist, are grounded on an unacceptable erasure of my role in developing metahumanist philosophy as much as on the erasure of the specific philosophy in itself, and, even more problematically, they coopt the space for a more radical alternative, such as metahumanism actually provides, and which is urgently needed in face of the extinction crisis and the persistence of human supremacist biases across all other posthumanist environments. Such claims are hence untenable because of how they have happened, and they are also philosophically inconsistent and untenable because of the reasons mentioned above: they build upon post- and transhumanism and exclude the novelty specific to metahumanism, contradicting it in fact. This way of doing is, let’s be clear, profoundly unethical and academically unacceptable.

Long hours of study you will need on my large book Ontohackers, dear friend, in order to start grasping metahumanist philosophy and its permanent becoming… if you are to write consistently about metahumanism in future!… But you can start already with my 100+ essays, as you know they are all accessible online, it is unfortunate that you didn’t do so already since thirteen years ago!

Let’s, quite simply, have RESPECT. If you talk about ethics, be ethical with your colleague in Metahumanism, and with the contents of it, first of all.

The contrary only increases immense problems that academic and intellectual environments already suffer from in our abusive society of extinction.

Which leads to another core issue: are we to perpetuate the same dear old power struggles with the post/metahumanities? Or can we get rid from reproducing erasure, cooptation, appropriation, and abuse within our circles?… Apparently we need to be alert at all times fighting it… Are colleagues going to contribute to the struggle against these tendencies, or is the academy and the intellectual world (not to speak of transhumanism) going to continue being a mere arena for power struggles in the trash-human system of extinction? How could this ever lead to change?

This is a dark page in the history of post-/metahumanities. Can we improve it from now on?

We became friends discussing Nietzsche as students at King’s College Hall. We have grown in opposite directions. I have grown more Dionysian, you maybe more Apollonian…. Can we find a middle point? Probably not, but let’s RESPECT one another.

I propose you an open discussion on the claims in this writing at the next Beyond Humanism Conference.

I hope that the serious denounciation here contained be taken seriously by you and all colleagues and academics on the subject. I will demand full respect and recognition of the differences here expressed. The metahuman turn will not allow itself being erased.



[1] See

[2] See

[3] See

[4] See

[5] See

[6] See

[7] See

[8] See and

[9] See

[10] See

[11] See



  1. Metahumanism official site:
  2. Dedeoglu, Cagdas and Jaime del Val. 2023. Special Issue: Metahuman Futures. Journal of Posthumanism. Vol. 3 No. 2. London: Transnational Press.
  3. Del Val, Jaime. 2002. “Frontier Bodies. Metacorpo – meta-morfologie: Sconfinamenti del soggetto, la corporalitá e la rappresentazione” In Convegno di studii gay-lesbici – Florence, Italy.
  4. Del Val, Jaime 2011. “Metamedia Metaformance”. Lecture at MIT. org/texts/DelVal-2011-Metamedia-Metaformance–MIT.pdf
  5. Del Val, Jaime.2012. “Metaformance metamedia”. In Arte del Cuerpo Digital. Edited by Alejandra Ceriani, 65-82. La Plata, Argentina: Edulp– >>> PDFof the book – – org/texts/DelVal-2012-METAFORMANCE-METAMEDIA.pdf
  6. Del Val, Jaime del. 2021a.  “The Dances of Becoming and the Metahumanist Manifesto. Its genealogy, evolution and relevance 10 years after.” InPosthuman Studies Reader. Core readings on Transhumanism, Posthumanism and Metahumanism. Evi D. Sampanikou, Jan Stasienko Eds. Basel: Schwabe Verlag –
    1. An extended version of this writing can be found here:
  7. Del Val, Jaime 2021b [2009] [2016] “Metahuman: Post-anatomical bodies, Metasex, and the Capitalism of Affect in Post-posthumanism”. (see below for previous editions). Reprinted in 2021 inPosthuman Studies Reader. Core readings on Transhumanism, Posthumanism and Metahumanism. Evi D. Sampanikou, Jan Stasienko Eds. Basel: Schwabe Verlag  ––Belgrade-2009-corr.pdf
  8. Del Val, Jaime. 2022. “Trash-Human Unhancement and Planetary Health.: Undoing the Planetary Holocaust by Reinventing Movement and the Body: A Manifesto for Cosmic Response-Ability and the Future of Life”. Journal of Posthumanism 2 (1). London, UK: 3-30.
  9. Del Val, Jaime. 2023a. 1st Liveable Futures Report: Food of Mass destruction: how exploiting animals drives us to extinction. Plant-based diet as global emergency. Creating an integrative frame of action.Madrid: Reverso/Metabody Institute.
  10. Del Val, Jaime 2023b. “Metahuman Studies, Choral Ontopolitics and Earth Liberation”. Journal of Posthumanism, vol. 3, no. 2, June 2023, pp. 103-24,
  11. Del Val, Jaime. 2023c (forthcoming).  Radical Movement Philosophy in the Age of Algorithms. Earth, Milky way: punctum books.
  12. Del Val, J., and Çağdaş Dedeoğlu. 2023. “Introduction: Metahuman Futures Forum and Ontological Therapies”. Journal of Posthumanism, vol. 3, no. 2, June 2023, pp. 85-102,
  13. Del Val, Jaime and MFF 2022 Lesvos Assembly-Chorus. 2023. “Metahuman Futures Manifesto”. Journal of Posthumanism, vol. 3, no. 2, June 2023, pp. 125-9,
  14. Del Val, Jaime and Stefan Lorenz Sorgner. 2010. A Metahumanist Manifesto.”  published:
    1. 2010 online at net in English.
      1. with translations in Spanish– German– Greek– Romanian – Serbian –Turkish
    2. 2011 in The Agonist IV, Issue II, Fall. New York: Nietzsche Circle [e-journal] [online] Available at:
    3. 2014 in Cynertart Festival catalogue, Dresden. In German.
    4. 2015 in the Metabody Journal, Madrid
      1. Spanish: org/texts/DelVal-2010-Manifiesto-metahumanista–Metabody-Journal-2015.pdf
      2. English: org/texts/DelVal-2010-Metahumanist-manifesto–Metabody-Journal.pdf
    5. 2017 in: Sampanikou, E. (ed.): Audiovisual Posthumanism. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, 2017, 9-13.
    6. 2021 in: Posthuman Studies Reader. Core readings on Transhumanism, Posthumanism and Metahumanism. Evi D. Sampanikou, Jan Stasienko Eds. Basel: Schwabe Verlag –
  15. Deretic, Irina, and Stefan Lorenz Sorgner, eds. 2016. From Humanism to Meta-, Post- and Transhumanism? Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
  16. Loh, Janina. 2018. Trans- und Posthumanismus: zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius
  17. Ranisch, Robert, and Stefan Lorenz Sorgner. 2014. Post- and Transhumanism: An introduction. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
  18. Sampanikou, Evi. 2023. “Misunderstandings Around Posthumanism. Lost in Translation? Metahumanism and Jaime Del Val’s Metahuman Futures Manifesto”. Journal of Posthumanism, vol. 3, no. 2, June 2023, pp. 131-8, doi:10.33182/joph.v3i2.3020.
  19. Sampanikou, Evi and Jan Stasienko Eds. 2021. Posthuman Studies Reader. Core readings on Transhumanism, Posthumanism and Metahumanism. Basel: Schwabe Verlag .
  20. Schussler, Aura Elena and Maurizio Balistreri, eds. 2023.Metahumanism, Euro-Transhumanism and Sorgner’s Philosophy. Technology, Ethics, Art. Budapest: Trivent
  21. Sorgner, Stefan Lorenz. 2015. “The Future of Education: Genetic Enhancement and Metahumanities.” Journal of Evolution & Technology25 (1): 31–48.ç
  22. Sorgner, Stefan Lorenz. 2020. On Transhumanism: The Most Dangerous Idea in the World?! Translated by Spencer Hawkins. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State Univ Press.
  23. Sorgner, Stefan Lorenz. 2022a. Philosophy of Posthuman Art. Posthuman Studies. Basel: Schwabe Verlagsgruppe AG Schwabe Verlag.
  24. Sorgner, Stefan Lorenz. 2022b. We Have Always Been Cyborgs: Digital Data, Gene Technologies, and an Ethics of Transhumanism. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
  25. Sorgner, Stefan Lorenz. 2023. “What Are the Metahumanities?” In Humanism and Beyond: Past, Present, and Future of the Humanities in Liberal Arts Education, edited by Fabrizio Conti and Stefan Lorenz Sorgner. Budapest: Trivent.
  26. Tuncel, Yunus. 2023. “Reflections on Trash-Humanism As Performed by Jaime Del Val”. Journal of Posthumanism, vol. 3, no. 2, June 2023, pp. 197-00, doi:10.33182/joph.v3i2.2968.