GoalOpinion/AssertionPostRead the criticism in this module [below], entitled, "Camus' The Guest: The Inadmissible Complicity" and share your ideas about the criticism in a discussion post (you MUST quote the passage). The post is meant to be a response specifically to THIS CRITICISM. So write at least three full paragraphs [or more if you wish] on this criticism [in relation to the short story] for the full 20 points.Studies in 20th Century LiteratureVolume 2 Issue 2 Article 41-1-1978Camus' "Guest": The Inadmissible ComplicityJames W. Greenlee Northern Illinois University

Choose one option: between 450-600 words. Option #1What sort of promise is made by Transhumanism or Posthumanism? What would successful Transhumanism look like? Why is the sort of thing someone could object to? Option #2Meilaender seems to suggest that the promise of immortality made by Posthumanism and Transhumanism is taken to be possible is because according to Posthumanists there's a very strong sense in which those movements don't imagine persons to be living beings at all, right? That certainly seems counter-intuitive. What would lead someone to think it? Option #3Religious hope, says Meilaender, sharply contrasts with the optimism of Posthumanism. Why is that supposed to be so significant and how can it count as an objection to the project of Posthumanism? Is that the same sort of problem Kass sees with Posthumanism or Transhumanism?