Limitations in epigenetic transhumanism

I challenge the premise that the above desires are limitations.. We need those desires in order to keep surviving as a species; otherwise, we would die out quickly. To "escape" those needs, we'd have to eliminate why we have them to begin with -- which would require overcoming mortality. Until we can do that, there's no way we're getting rid of those carnal desires anytime soon.

This is can is-ought fallacy. You're assuming that we need to engage in these things to survive purely because we currently do, whilst the OP talks about removing said needs in the future. Hence, your definition of "mortality" is fallaciously rigid.

Specifically addressing the idea that these desires are limitations, would we not be more free if we were able to forgo hunger, in order to survive? Regardless of whether it is a necessary limitation, it is a limitation nonetheless.

Right...explain to me how we carry on the species without sex? How we obtain energy throughout the day without food?

You haven't demonstrated a reason to eliminate these needs whilst keep our species alive.

No. We survive just fine with hunger -- I'm not sure why you view as so limiting that we need to eliminate it for the arbitrary goal of being "free". 

Why don't we take it a step further and eliminate the need to have clothes on? To live under a roof? To breathe oxygen?

I'm not sure how I'm committing the is-ought fallacy

You continuously misunderstand the incredibly basic concept: not needing to do something is better than having to do something.

This is just untrue as an axiom. Humans are in a sense, beasts of burden. Meaning and purpose is found most often in the undertaking of responsibility. Needing to do that isn't worse than not needing to. Especially when such a need provides huge benefits, and not doing so tends to reap many harms

And I would say this need is more a result of higher intelligence and conscious individuation. To remove these benefits, you would have to revert humanities intelligence. Really, the same goes for morality, a sense of right and wrong comes with consciousness and individuation. In essence, seperation of our actions from nature. Again, reversion to pre-individuation total ignorance of the self would be required fmpov

This just strikes me as having a bit of a "god" complex, wanting to tool around with things we arent even anywhere close to understanding fully

For example, the "nuclear family" developed over time as the best way to raise kids to optimize potential success in adulthood.

Recent cultural pushes to glorify single parenting and change that order has resulted in kids suffering very detrimental affects. The same goes for this "gender theory" stuff that's based off a study that amounts to child abuse by John Money, or "toxic masculinity". Well, now testerone levels are dropping across the board, males are getting less intelligent, and checking out on a mass scale(suicide rates, employment etc). 

All from an opinion that aggressive and dominant male tendencies are "toxic" and "unnecessary" as opposed to something to be embraced and constructively channeled for noble purposes. No instead lets just put em on meds and watch as they're fucked up later on in life. Certainly none of the aforementioned could have anything to do with that

 Is it desirable to have creatures hell-bent on competing with each other? Would not collaboration be preferable?

Both have their benefits, and both have their negatives. Competition breeds excellence, cooperation breeds togetherness. You see this encapsulated perfectly in team sports, where cooperation and competition are intertwined. 

And no, it wouldn't. Society wouldn't be some place where violence ever occurs either. Females are aggressive in their own way, generally it tends to be passive aggressiveness. But interestingly enough, the coupling with the highest rates of domestic abuse? Lesbian relationships 

Females are just as savage as men, they're savage in a different manner generally, but nonetheless, one that can hardly be argued as any better than direct aggression. Especially when the swing side of aggression when channeled constructively is, in part but not exclusively, protection. 👏

Both have their benefits, and both have their negatives. Competition breeds excellence, cooperation breeds togetherness. You see this encapsulated perfectly in team sports, where cooperation and competition are intertwined. 

And no, it wouldn't. Society wouldn't be some place where violence ever occurs either. Females are aggressive in their own way, generally it tends to be passive aggressiveness. But interestingly enough, the coupling with the highest rates of domestic abuse? Lesbian relationships 

Females are just as savage as men, they're savage in a different manner generally, but nonetheless, one that can hardly be argued as any better than direct aggression.

Especially when the swing side of aggression when channeled constructively is, in part but not exclusively, protection.

We no longer require protection

Lmao, you go right ahead and tell me how peak strength differentials between men and women aren't worlds apart, and how that doesn't at all matter in combat. War still exists, you ready to jump on the frontlines and fight against people who can bench 300-400 and squat 500-600+? I know for a fact, because its basic biology, that you arent anywhere near that kinda strength. How well do you think you could handle carrying 150 pounds+ of equipment while on foot for miles? 

Come back and talk to me about how "protection isnt needed" when you can not shit your pants and carry 150+ pounds for 10+ miles on foot without getting winded or tired so as to still be in peak combat condition