My advice to you: take a step back from the breathless gee-whizzery, the conferences, the Web sites, the Second Life fantasies; take a step back from the (would-be) technical arguments for or against nanorobot-based Star Trek replicators, rejuvenation machines, and AI "superintelligences", and take a page from Dale's book about the sociological and psychological context and function of these (interlocking) beliefs.
To which "Anonymous" (possibly a different person altogether, who can say?) responds:
That might be a valid activity for persons like Dale and yourself, and would help to keep religious tendencies, which is innate in all of us, in check. But that is not the focus of so called "Transhumanist" Organisations or their advocates. As I understand it, the purpose is to make the public more aware of possible impending technological developments, in the medium term to long term, and to try to steer public policy in a progressive direction. I think we should endeavour to support such a cause, because incumbent interests will develop new technologies as our scientific knowledge progresses to entrench their position to the detriment of the rest of society.
Of course, "Anonymous" here is mistaking idealized technodevelopmental outcomes with which he has identified personally for reasonable consensus science and progressive activism. These idealized outcomes are the ones he is describing as "impending" and as "new."
I absolutely will not ever allow these discussion to become distracted from the fact that the technodevelopmental focus of superlative futurology is always with imaginary and idealized technodevelopmental outcomes that answer to superpredicated aspirations -- superintelligence, superlongevity, superabundance.
The transhumanists, extropians, singularitarians, techno-immortalists, nano-cornucopiasts, and the rest spend the majority of their time discussing the "impending" and "new" development of techniques for "migrating" their embodied brains without loss into cyberspace or robot bodies thereby achieving a radical longevization as good as immortality, to be spent in immersive better-than-real virtualities or nanobotic treasure cities, under the gaze of history-ending superintelligent post-biological Robot Gods.
There is no available sense in the world in which any of this is either "impending" or "new." While it is true, of course, that there are innumerable problems for secular democratic progressive politics to be found in ongoing technodevelopmental social struggle, there is no (or only an accidental) contribution to be found in this work by turning to the deranged and deranging discourse of superlativity and its various faith-based initiatives.
It is actually quite ludicrous to say, as you do, that transhumanism (a would be -ism and marginal movement of all things, members of which evangelize their faith in "The Future" rather than engaging in any of the actual worldly processes through which progressive technodevelopment actually takes place) is essentially an "educational" and "policy-making" enterprise. Transhumanism is a marginal sub(cult)ure whose membership organizations often seek to acquire legitimacy (and therefore attention and money) by selling themselves as "educational" and "policy-making" enterprises. But there is obviously no need to join a Robot Cult to facilitate technodevelopmental progress at the level of research or policy, while just as obviously there is every reason not to do so.
Progressive activism certainly includes activism  to facilitate consensus science through public funding, regulation, and education and also  to facilitate progressive distributions of the costs, risks, and benefits of technodevelopment to all the stakeholders to those developments, and  to democratize the processes through those stakeholders have a say in these technodevelopmental decisions that affect them, and  consensualize to the greatest possible extent the terms on the basis of which technodevelopmental change is incorporated into people's lives.
Taking this sort of progressive technodevelopmental activism seriously looks nothing like indulging in superlative futurological discourses or investing your identity in marginal defensive sub(cult)ural superlative futurological membership organizations.