The posthuman museum – is this an oxymoron? The museum is an utterly human establishment. Within its walls, we aim at securing the material referents of the past and interrupt their natural decay, because they underpin our fragile memories and provide knowledge of the past. We care for objects to save them for perpetuity. But while we aim at stability, impermanence is always already trespassing on our sacred grounds. Heritage eaters are cosmopolitan, occurring in museums all over the globe. For example, bacteria and fungi are present in the air and on surfaces, which negatively affect the stability of museum collections. Consequently, we care for collections through conservation practices and environmental measures to save them for future generations. But is the function of the museum always to avoid collections becoming metabolic? More than merely an oxymoron, perhaps thinking the museum in posthuman terms can help us develop a place that is no longer tied to the all-too-human urge to rescue objects from decomposition. This is what I set out to explore. Drawing on post-preservation theory (DeSilvey), posthuman notions of care (de la Bellacasa), and examples from bioart (Feuerstein), I will consider how posthuman values may affect crucial practices at the museum, such as the caring for objects. While caring usually entails saving for perpetuity and entails a carer-cared for structure mirroring traditional subject-object dualisms, I will develop a sense of caring as hosting. Within this framework, I will present experiments into posthuman preservation practices that we are currently participating in at Medical Museion. What we wish to develop is a multispecies ‘living’ room as an environment that hosts life-processes instead of repressing them. A kind of posthuman museum, where heritage eaters are conceived as generative participants in the caring for things as living assemblages.