...Now a humanism worthy of the name could of course not be concerned solely with a part of human nature, but would have to be concerned with the whole of human nature, including its beast of prey part. Any 'humanism' that seeks to conquer part of human nature for the sake of another part is by that token already transhumanism. A humanism worthy of the name must be a superhumanism, in the Nietzschean sense: concerning itself with the full human being, including its terrifying and questionable aspects.
It is precisely our "humanism" which is most destructive of humanity--destructive of its natural high points. But to actively combat that movement would itself be an initiative to conquer human nature: for the herd animal part is as essential a part of human nature as the beast of prey part is; and its only natural for the former to wish to abolish the latter...
In the context of our current world, overpopulated and consisting mostly of what you refer to as the herd, the "beast of prey" part of human nature is rather dysfunctional. We don't need to hunt other creatures in order to survive and thrive. So I think that suppressing "the beast of prey" is not a particular matter to be opposed to. It is a part of our DNA and even if suppressed extraordinarily, it will arise (and still, dysfunctionally, does) as context demands.