It should be obvious from the words themselves that Transhumanism and Conservatism are essentially completely opposite and mutually exclusive enemies of each other:
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, “to preserve”) is a political attitude that advocates institutions and traditional practices that have developed organically, thus emphasizing stability and continuity.
Transhumanism is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities. The movement regards aspects of the human condition, such as disability, suffering, disease, aging, and involuntary death as unnecessary and undesirable. Transhumanists look to biotechnologies and other emerging technologies for these purposes.
Indeed, the opposite movement to Transhumanism is called “Bioconservatism”:
Bioconservatism (a portmanteau word combining “biology” and “conservatism”) is a stance of hesitancy about technological development especially if it is perceived to threaten a given social order. Strong bioconservative positions include opposition to genetic modification of food crops, the cloning and genetic engineering of livestock and pets, and, most prominently, rejection of the genetic, prosthetic, and cognitive modification of human beings to overcome what are broadly perceived as current human biological and cultural limitations.
Bioconservatives range in political perspective from right-leaning religious and cultural conservatives to left-leaning environmentalists and technology critics. What unifies bioconservatives is skepticism about medical and other biotechnological transformations of the living world. Typically less sweeping as a critique of technological society than bioluddism, the bioconservative perspective is characterized by its defense of the natural, deployed as a moral category
In spite of how obvious it is that there is absollutely nothing conservative about transhumanism, many Transhumanists call themselves conservatives, often prefacing the term as “libertarian” conservative, and are trying to achieve their anti-conservative goals by picking out a few aspects of conservativism that they need to advance their agenda. In particular, they appeal to conservative principles such as laissez-faire policies for businesses and state’s rights and opposition to federal laws and regulations, as well as policies that increase private wealth to enable them to maximize their investment in biotech research and give them as much free reign and money as possible. It is a very self-interested harnessing of conservatism to fulfill short-term goals, because most Transhumanists recognize that not only will government wind up regulating the safety and use of genetic engineering technologies, the government will also have to subsidize the technologies to make them available to everyone else. Transhumanism, specifically genetic engineering of human beings to improve their health and intelligence and talents, will lead to big government and big regulation and big intrusion into everyone’s freedom to procreate with their own unmodified genes. Conservatives should not be tricked into letting Transhumanism into the tent, it is the polar opposite and enemy of conservatism and needs to be rejected.