Uh, not quite. I'm pretty sure what the writer was saying is this: The "nature of what it means to be human", despite whatver variation in experience there's been over the centuries and over the globe, has always had some fundamental commonality of meaning - and that meaning's about to be radically changed.
Honestly, I don't know what it is you're trying to prove here. You largely don't even disagree with what I'm saying. Apparently you just have some sort of problem with the way I'm saying it. It's kind of a bizarre hangup.
the only way to "change what it means to be human" in a manner which is distinctly different from the way technological innovation has always "changed what it means to be human" would be to substantially alter the human mind.
not the memory capacity, not the calculation speed, not the auxiliary assets: the mind itself.
The human mind is a mix of personality, reason, emotion, learned habit, and instinct. All hype aside, I don't see technology making any impact on any of the above any time in the forseeable future - with the faint possibility that technology will be used to either temprarily or permanently bypass the limbic system. Some might think that desirable. I suspect the unintended consequences would prove fatal to the modified organism.