Never heard of it before, but it does closely resemble my own views. Not completely, but very closely.

I recall reading in a medical text or another that when you die, your bones are only about 7 years old or so, and generally in perfect condition as long as disease or injury didn't ravage them. Find out how(and how to apply it to other organs), and you could have an ageless species.

I don't remember when I first came to the conclusion that life is a biological machine, but as soon as I did it became obvious to me that death is not necessarily an inevitable conclusion. Merely a function of disrepair.

Although I am clearly no Luddite, I somehow don't understand this movement in the way they impose a certain moral paradigm on how humanity ought to develop which is in many ways highly depended on naturalistic assertions. I agree that technology should be for the benefit of humanity, but it sounds rather tautologic. Yet the content of 'benefit' cannot, imho, be derived from a naturalistic claim that human nature is unfinished.

I mean that if you agree that technology is something to be embraced as a natural way of how humanity develops itself contains little to no evidence or rational foundation to what extent we can understand the future posthuman condition. Posthumanity could as much be non-technologic as technologic, and I think it's rather dangerous to assume that we already have an understanding of what features of the current human condition (technology, social relations, political setting, et cetera) are the key features which show us the telos of human evolution.

How would we decide what is the ethical use of technology in order to expand our human capacities? I'd dispute that it is evident what human capacities are to be expanded, since it is unclear what criteria could tell us that e.g. prolongment of human life has more weight than let's say, the development of new forms of entertainment. 

The list of human capacities to be expanded would by highly arbitrary and trivial, and consequentially would not recognize the plurality in personal identity. Saying that humanity is unfinished is saying that everyone is unfinished, and thus imposing an ought on everyone under the supposition that there is agreement about the human condition and agreement of what the destiny of humanity is.

Althought the prospect transhumanist show us sounds ideal, it would be highly irrational if they would assume that it is the proper route of humanity to follow. It still stands in need of justification that goes beyond the valuation of technology itself, and does not appeal to a fixed idea of the human condition as being unfinished. Or they should find an argument that proofs that there is actually somesort of Aristotelian telos involved to which we are inclined to move, which I doubt.