Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Featured article candidacy?

I think the Transhumanism article is ready for its close up. Does anyone have any objections? If so, please provide us with recommendations that would improve this article to guarantee that it will be featured. However, keep in mind that this article will always continue to be improved whether or not it is featured. --Loremaster 18:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with it now.--StN 21:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have some misgivings about the moonshot image. Does it really have anything to do with transhumanism? I think its presence in the Practical criticisms section as an example of implementing a technology despite great difficulties is not NPOV. One could just as easily use a picture of Chernobyl, given the examples discussed.--StN 18:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree. Originally, the image in this section was that of Dolly the sheep as an example of a technological breakthrough which many previously believed to be impossible but it was removed when the mention of cloning was deleted from the text. I don't think an image of Chernobyl would be relevant since the issue being discussed in this section is not existential risks. Hmmm... I guess we need an image that conveys the notion of trying to predict the future. --Loremaster 19:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PPTParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.jpg

This definitely gets the point across, but it takes some studying. That, and the fact that it might be unreadable at the standard size used in the article, may make it non-optimal. The cover of Dublin's Futurehype book is unavailable, but there is a recent book with a similar title and an attractive cover: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1576753700/qid=1144351899/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-2748799-7681621?s=books&v=glance&n=283155. I prefer your conceptual image for reasons stated earlier, but it may not work.--StN 19:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Paradigm Shift figure is readable when you open it up (so was the Biocomplexity Spiral), but is uninterpretable without the legend on the image page. It's not an attractive image in the small form, but makes an interesting appendix to the article. Maybe there can be a link to this image page in the text, but a different image shown on the article page.--StN 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said and support your edits. --Loremaster 21:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just worked through it slowly - and made no edits this time! As far as I'm concerned, let's aply for Featured Article status and see what happens. Metamagician3000 23:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend giving the article at least a week on the peer review (the usual rotation is about 3 weeks).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Looks like I'm getting ahead of myself. :D Still, I guess my point remains that we have a version that I, at least, am prepared to keep stable while peer review goes on. Metamagician3000 02:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. We'll wait till April 14th. --Loremaster 18:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would give this article a tentative support on FAC right now. After making a few copy edits, I'm sure that there are more misplaced commas, un-italicized titles and choppy paragraphs which could be fixed, but that's the sort of thing which normally gets repaired during FAC anyway. Anville 11:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia:Peer review/Transhumanism/archive1 page:

This article is well on its way to becoming a FA but still needs fine-tuning. Some comments:
- Footnotes & references (Footnote numbers are current to the date stamp below but are subject to change):
  - The "Notes" section does not seem to be formated consistently. Some provide ext.links, some I have to track down in the references.
  - The sources used for footnote numbers 1, 6, 10, 11, 12, 18 do not appear in the Reference section.
  - Footnote 3 misquotes the subject.
  - Where does TransCentury UPdate's "100,000 viewers" figure come from? I do not see it in the footnote source.
  - Footnote 17 gives the first name of the author; should be last name.
  - Footnote 19 is empty - is that where this claim of a quantum leap in the mid-21st C. comes from?
  - In Spirituality, what is footnote 13 used to reference? The source does not seem to relate to what is written in that paragraph.
- History
  - This reads like the history of an industry or organization, not an intellectual movement. I'd prefer to see more about the origin of the concept and how that changed over time. The Bostrom-A History of Transhumanist Thought reference did a great job at this.
  - I don't quite get what the first sentence in the second paragraph of History is is saying, can it be expressed more clearly?
  - What was this about "Alcor Life Extension Foundation"? It is abruptly introduced but not explained. Why did it become a nexus?
  - That parapraph about the "early 1980s at the University of California, Los Angeles" is confusing and the footnotes did not help. How does Space Tourism and EZTV Media relate to the activities (conference, convention?) at UCLA?
- Also...
  - The last paragraph/sentence of Spirituality should probably be expanded. The current version simply states that papers have been written on the subject. But, what about them?
  - Some of the thumbed-images, like "Converging technologies", could use better image captions, please see Wikipedia:Captions.
  - There is an image of "Digitalism" in the Spirituality section, but the section does not explain what it is or how it relates to transhumanism. --maclean25 20:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of Maclean's comments. --Loremaster 22:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

They look sensible to me, too, although I haven't checked all the specific comments about references. Except in one or two cases, like when I realised we hadn't referenced the important Julian Huxley quote, I've tended to take the referencing on trust. I'd like to be sure we've covered everything raised by Maclean before we put up the article for FA.

My own main worry, now, is actually that I can't see what one or two of the images are supposed to be doing. In particular, the converging technologies image just seems like an ornament at the moment unless we are going to give it a better caption and link it more clearly to the text. I'm also unsure about the digitalism image, although it's a great image, and I'd hate to lose it. Also, with the books, etc., I think the standard is that we should discuss them if we are going to have covers or posters. We meet that standard for some, or could easily do so, but it's a bit iffy with some others. I don't want to spoil anyone else's vision of the visual appearance of the article, which is now excellent, but wonder whether more thought still needs to go into this. Metamagician3000 23:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

StN has properly captioned the NBIC image. I removed the mention of digitalism under the Holy Tech image. Until we find a proper caption, I've simply put the name of the image and its author. As for the images in the Criticisms section, I don't think they all need be discussed because some are simply there to better illustrate what books and movies that arguments are named after. However, feel free to add captions as long it doesn't visually debalance the article (which I've noticed can happen). --Loremaster 19:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

How much of Maclean's suggestions been acted upon? --Loremaster 02:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Maclean:

This article is well on its way to becoming a FA but still needs fine-tuning. Some comments: Footnotes & references (Footnote numbers are current to the date stamp below but are subject to change): The "Notes" section does not seem to be formated consistently. Some provide ext.links, some I have to track down in the references.

I've fixed some of this and gave a rationale for leaving some Notes as just links.

The sources used for footnote numbers 1, 6, 10, 11, 12, 18 do not appear in the Reference section.

See previous comment.

Footnote 3 misquotes the subject.

I fixed this.

Where does TransCentury UPdate's "100,000 viewers" figure come from? I do not see it in the footnote source.

I don't know the answer to this.

Footnote 17 gives the first name of the author; should be last name.

I fixed this.

Footnote 19 is empty - is that where this claim of a quantum leap in the mid-21st C. comes from?

I don't understand what he means by 'empty." It seems ok to me.

In Spirituality, what is footnote 13 used to reference? The source does not seem to relate to what is written in that paragraph.

This should be fixed by someone who knows the Hughes reference.

History This reads like the history of an industry or organization, not an intellectual movement. I'd prefer to see more about the origin of the concept and how that changed over time. The Bostrom-A History of Transhumanist Thought reference did a great job at this.

This should be fixed by someone familiar with the Bostrom piece.

I don't quite get what the first sentence in the second paragraph of History is is saying, can it be expressed more clearly?

This can be improved by someone familiar with FM-2030's work.

What was this about "Alcor Life Extension Foundation"? It is abruptly introduced but not explained. Why did it become a nexus?

I think this has been fixed; at least Alcor is explained. 'Nexus" seems clear, but maybe should be changed?

That parapraph about the "early 1980s at the University of California, Los Angeles" is confusing and the footnotes did not help. How does Space Tourism and EZTV Media relate to the activities (conference, convention?) at UCLA?

I rewrote some of this section.

Also... The last paragraph/sentence of Spirituality should probably be expanded. The current version simply states that papers have been written on the subject. But, what about them?

Fixed by Loremaster.

Some of the thumbed-images, like "Converging technologies", could use better image captions, please see Wikipedia:Captions.

Fixed.

There is an image of "Digitalism" in the Spirituality section, but the section does not explain what it is or how it relates to transhumanism. --

Fixed.

maclean25 20:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC) --StN 04:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

--StN 04:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I altered the wording about religious affiliation just slightly. It seems to me that it now matches up closely with what is in the cited Hughes report. I'm a bit more worried about the reference to political affiliatons, which does not really match up well. I'll have a think about this. I think the main thing is that WTA members cover a range of political positions, but few identify with conservative positions. I think the Hughes data shows that a lot more transhumanists are libertarians of one sort or another than in the general population, though that may not be the correct way to put it. Here is what the article currently says, which I am suggesting may not give the most informative report: In 1998, philosophers Nick Bostrom and David Pearce founded the World Transhumanist Association (WTA), whose members are mainly centrists convinced of the importance of preserving, yet improving, liberal democracy.[13] Metamagician3000 08:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hughes himself (and possibly Bostrom) appear to be politically "progressive." In my experience many if not most transhumanists are more to the libertarian side.--StN 16:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what most people don't take into account is that there are right-wing libertarians and left-wing libertarians. Althought they are both apolitical organizations, the Extropy Institute is mostly comprised of right-wing libertarians while the WTA is mostly comprised of leftists, upwingers, apolitcals and moderates. --Loremaster 16:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Practical criticisms

I would like to link the following text: 'humanity's technological capacities' to the Wikipedia image page showing the logarithmic graph of technological change, but I don't know how to do it without displaying the image itself.--StN 19:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Try placing it in single brackets. -Seth Mahoney 20:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Or try [[:Image:Example.jpg|text]], but I don't see why we cannot just put the images in the article. As far as 'logarithmic graph of technological change' go, I recommend one of the graphs shared with us by Ray Kurzweil - see law of accelerating returns for the graphs to chose from.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--I had turned up that solution in a search. And the image I had in mind was the one Loremaster suggested earlier, in fact a Kurzweil graph.--StN 02:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Spirituality

Great rewrite, Loremaster!--StN 20:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Loremaster 20:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. It's now in very clear, clean prose. I do, however, think that some reference to digitalism should be made in the text if we are going to retain the digitalism image to illustrate the section. Does anyone know what the relationship is between digitalism and transhumanism? I take it that whoever chose the image saw a relationship and could explain it in a sentence. I see that Loremaster has previously raised exactly this point. Metamagician3000 23:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Maclean mentioned that the "last paragraph/sentence of Spirituality should probably be expanded. The current version simply states that papers have been written on the subject. But, what about them?"

2. Although I think digitalism as a current within transhumanism, I've decided to remove the mention of Digitalism under the image in the Spirituality section.

--Loremaster 18:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I felt that describing what digitalism is in the figure caption justified using the figure in this section without making a big issue about digitalism per se being integral to transhumanism. That is, when read in conjuction with the text of the Spirituality section, the affinity of transhumanism with digitalism comes through. --StN 20:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. What do the rest of you think? --Loremaster 21:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed one word, but am otherwise happy. Metamagician3000 14:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I removed the mention of papers. --Loremaster 01:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Currents

I added "libertarian transhumanism," for I feel it has been long-needed. Considering that both Glenn Reynolds and the author of the Fight Aging blog, Reason, have described themselves as "libertarian transhumanists," and that extropianism as defined by Max More used to include libertarianism in the definition, I believe that libertarian transhumanism is actually one of the larger currents. I will get to work on an article for it as soon as I have some free time, which should be in late May. --SpaceTycoon 00:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a legitimate current. I also think an article on the subject is a good idea. I've created a stub for it so feel free to expand it. However, great care should be taken by all contributors to ensure NPOV in order to not only avoid spreading misinformation but also avoid edit wars. --Loremaster 01:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Transhumanist Art

I think carnal art is a subgenre within transhumanist art but not a current within transhumanism. Perhaps we should create small Art section or transfrom the Fiction into Fiction and Art section in order to include the mention carnal art in this article. --Loremaster 05:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I can now see StN has followed my suggestion. --Loremaster 14:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And I am quite impressed by the work that has been done in this section. --Loremaster 15:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I restored the Michael Jackson reference that Metamagician removed. Michael Jackson was an influential popular artist of international stature during the 1980s and 90s. An integral part of his artistic persona was his transformation of his own physiognomy by plastic surgery. This was a period during which these surgical techniques were being perfected with the use of new technologies, such as lasers. (If you doubt the role of plastic surgery in the transhumanist gestalt, check out recent photographs of Natasha Vita-More, age 60+.) It was also a period during which the distinctions between "high" and popular art were being called into question by art theorists. (There have been numerous academic articles written about Madonna, for example.) Before it was changed, I ran the Transhumanism in art subsection section past a museum lecturer on contemporary art of my acquaintance. In her opinion the Orlan-Michael Jackson connection was accurate and useful.--StN 17:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite that fact that I understand why transhumanists or anyone might feel uneasy about being associated with Michael Jackson, I agree with StN. Simon Smith of Betterhumans.com also agrees. --Loremaster 17:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to press this issue. There's no source to suggest that Michael Jackson sees himself as involved in art of any sort, let alone transhumanist art, by undergoing all that plastic surgery. Nor is there any source to suggest that it is popularly or academically understood as art. With all respect to you both and to the lecturer StN mentions (and that person's oral comment to an editor here is not a verifiable source), there is a huge difference between someone like Orlan, who claims that what she is doing is art, and Michael Jackson, who may be modifying his appearance for any of a wide range of motives that may have nothing to do with it being art. At the most, we can say that Simon Smith has interpreted it that way, with a reference, if that's what he actually said. I'm going to leave the phrasing there, rather than revert, and just ask you both to be responsive to my cogent argument. :) To be honest, I thought that someone was making a joke - I didn't realise it had come from one of you. Metamagician3000 23:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree, Metamagician. Michael Jackson is an artist, albeit a popular artist, and his physical presentation of himself is part of his art (as it is for David Bowie, Madonna, Natasha Vita-More, and was for Salvador Dali and the jazz musician Miles Davis.) What does it matter what his personal motivations are for wanting to blur gender, race and age? What are Natasha Vita-More's personal motivations? I once heard her say that her main desire was eternal youth. A mundane objective, but one that can be turned into art. Michael Jackson's transformations over time were achieved by technological means (including oxygen chambers and skin-lightening drugs in addition to plastic surgery) and became inseparable from the public's perception, and reception, of his work, pro and con. I am not saying by any means that his personal life is wholesome, but this is irrelevant to consideration of him as an artist. What do we know about the personal lives of the other artists or thinkers we have discussed? The search term combination "Michael Jackson" + transhumanism brings up more than 600 hits on Google, showing that he is part of the discourse on this subject. One example is http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~freuden/Valis/transhumanism.html, not an academic article, to be sure, but as interesting as some of the other online material we have linked to. Is Michael Jackson a "serious" artist or artifact? Was Andy Warhol?--StN 00:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A course listing at UC Santa Barbara: http://transcriptions.english.ucsb.edu/curriculum/courses/schedule_classnotes.asp?CourseID=157&EventID=3063--StN 00:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My objection is not to Michael Jackson being connected in a loose way with the discourse surrounding transhumanism - indeed, I think the comparison/association is quite appropriate as he is obviously using technology to alter himself in ways he that considers desirable. My objection is to the unattributed claim that his transformation of himself is "art" in the way that Orlan's transformations are uncontroversially art (or at least uncontroversially presented as such). A claim like this about Jackson is a controversial matter of interpretation, and should be attributed and referenced in the article. I'm sure that others would be making the same criticism in the FA process. I haven't deleted it now it's back there and know who wrote it, but I'm saying you really must attribute it to someone and provide a verifiable reference. By the way, I realise that Natasha Vita-More is an artist, among other things, but that does not entail that her cosmetic surgery is intended or "read" by others as an example of her art. It may be, but it would also require a referenced source if someone made such a claim in the Wikipedia article about her. I'd say the same about Dali's moustache. It's not up to me to make a claim that it was part of his artistic oeuvre, but if an art critic said it that would be fine - we could attribute it and provide a reference. Metamagician3000 01:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

StN, I've just checked your latest change on this subject. What you have there now is much better. I'm fine with it. My points above don't apply to the new wording. Metamagician3000 06:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

StN, I am surprised that you didn't mention Stelarc in the Fiction and art section. Can you find a way to incorporate him? Also, what about biopunk artists that are using biotechnology to create living art? --Loremaster 15:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. (I don't want to mess with "your" section. ;). --Loremaster 16:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

From the User talk:Egghead2001 page:

"Hey Vita-More is around *50* not 60+ -- get your facts straight - HEHE. The Michael Jackson reference is pure shit. Even Orlan is far from transhumanism. Stelarc is a better example of a transhumanist artist, David Bowie tops the list. There is a faq at the arts and culture site you guys should reference. Send an SOS out for help on the arts section. --Egghead2001"

I don't necessarily agree with everything he said but we should probably analyze and summarize and cite information provided on the new and improved Transhumanist Arts & Culture website. --Loremaster 19:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read the History section at this website and don't see anything of significance that we have neglected. At that site "automorphing," a species of transhumanist art, is defined as "self-sculpting." This fits both Orlan and Michael Jackson to a T. Stelarc is already mentioned.--StN 20:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Historical Revisionism

Maclean wrote: History This reads like the history of an industry or organization, not an intellectual movement. I'd prefer to see more about the origin of the concept and how that changed over time. The Bostrom-A History of Transhumanist Thought reference did a great job at this.

StN wrote: This should be fixed by someone familiar with the Bostrom piece.

Metamagician, can you or anyone else work on this? Once we finish improving the History and References sections, our work will be done. --Loremaster 14:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look at this over the weekend. I just made some very minor wording edits where I could discern a "corporate" feel to the history section, but it was not obvious to me what else should be done. Metamagician3000 03:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now revised this considerably, with a new opening para for the section. I hope this will be helpful in rethinking the section, and I'd appreciate any views about what more needs to be done. I'm afraid I'm not yet very good with our referencing system. I've created a new note 4 rather than pointing to note 1, as I intended to do. Can someone fix this please? Metamagician3000 02:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the revision. It's very good. :) --Loremaster 15:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If someone else doesn't do it before me, I will finish the referecing during the weekend or at the start of next week. Afterward, I will trigger the featured article candidacy process. --Loremaster 16:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably getting to be about time to do this. Maybe after this weekend? I could still quibble about minor things, but I'd be interested to see what objections come from FA. They may be things that none of us expect. Metamagician3000 04:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why did Loremaster de-link "performance art"?--StN 02:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been told that internal links should generally be used to link an article to other articles of relevance and importance in order to better understand the topic of the article (such as Transhumanism and technological singularity for example). --Loremaster 03:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If it really is a piece of performance art, I think that particular link is okay. It may not be strictly necessary, but it's not like it contains an element of stealth POV or something.

I do think that the editors involved should go over the article, though, and make sure they haven't put in too many unnecessary links. I'm not inclined to take out other people's links and thus cause possible conflicts, but I do think there's always been a tendency to overlink this article. Metamagician3000 04:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

StN wrote this before we changed "performance art" for "experimental film". However, his question was more as to why I had removed the link regardless of how we describe Vita-More's creation. As I explained above, I don't this link is useful in understanding transhumanism or a particular sentence in the article better. --Loremaster 15:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Species ethic

In the Brave New World argument section, StN added the following text: The German social philosopher Jürgen Habermas makes a similar argument in his book The Future of Human Nature, in which he asserts that human values are tied to a species identity that is, in part, biologically based. This leads Habermas to suggest that the human "species ethic" is susceptible to being undermined by genetic alteration.

Is there anyone, whether or not he or she is a transhumanist, who has written a critique of species ethic that we can cite? --Loremaster 18:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently feeling a little frustrated with the process of identifying and finding a response to every possible argument. There are many transhumanist thinkers with varied views. There are many, many arguments, often subtle variations of each other, that can be put against various of those views, and even more arguments that can be put in response to each of them, from different transhumanist or transhumanist-sympathetic perspectives. If we try to cover everything, we'll end up writing a whole book. So come on guys, can't we please reach some kind of stable version of what we think the main arguments are? Especially when we've reached the point where the article had been through PR and we were close to submitting it for FA status.

I don't see how this particular argument has anything to do with Brave New World, which is about a peaceful and superficially pleasant society in which almost everyone is happy but life has become, in some sense, "shallow" (valuable things like real friendship, creativity, and romantic love having been lost in the quest for stability). The point made by Habermas is really the same as - or a very close variation of - the argument we attributed to Annas and others (in fact Annas talks in exactly the same way about morality being rooted in species solidarity, in predicting genetic wars/genocides). If we think Habermas has something extra to say, it should be mentioned in that section.

Many transhumanists would reject all this out of hand as crassly speciesist. Some might say that it does indeed suggest that we should be cautious before we alter ourselves genetically - it suggests that any transformations we make to ourselves need to be kept within some boundaries, at least in the first instance, so that the resulting beings are still responsive to each other. I can't quickly lay my hands on a passage in a major transhumanist text that makes these precise points in rejoinder to Habermas. I once wrote some things myself that deal with the issues - one piece wrestles with Annas's version of the argument, in particular, but it was published in a very obscure magazine. We may be stuck with the fact that people like Bostrom and Hughes think such arguments are speciesist, and that the way we respond to various kinds of beings should be based on their possession of such characteristics as sentience and personhood (including reason and self-consciousness) - characteristics that no transhumanist thinker has ever suggested we remove from ourselves or our children. Peter Singer is the obvious person to refer to if we want a view condemning the idea that ethics is based on species-membership. We could cite his forcefully worded arguments in the second edition of Practical Ethics, for example. That approach would not entirely satisfy me, because I think that Annas and Habermas are merely exaggerating and scaremongering, rather than putting a point that is completely without philosophical merit. The issue could be quite complicated - and I don't think everyone who acknowledges that fact should necessarily be outside the transhumanist fold. But I think it is what Bostrom and Hughes, etc., think - following the likes of Singer - that matters here. Metamagician3000 11:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Metamagician. Although the article should and will always continue to be tweaked regardless of whether or not it gets FA status, we should avoid adding new argument and counter-arguments unless they are of major relevance and importance. However, as suggested in the section above, we might need to improve or redo the History section before submitting it for FA status. --Loremaster 14:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Habermas

I'm not entirely happy with transferring the Habermas material from Brave New World to Eugenics Wars. It seems to me that BNW is more moral-philosophical and EW is more practical-political. In particular, abrogating Habermas's species ethic would certainly create a "brave new world," but not necessarily eugenic wars.--StN 15:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a preference either way. I would simply like to see a cited rebuttal to species ethic. --Loremaster 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll move it back to Brave New World tomorrow unless Metamagician strongly objects or adds some additional text supporting the argument above. "Brave New World" is clearly a eugencized society, based on tacit coercion but not open warfare. It seems to me that this is what distinguishes BNW from EW in our outline, where BNW emphasizes the breakdown in equality due to bioengineering (as in Habermas), not the social conflict that this could lead to (as in Annas and Andrews). These two aspects could have as well been treated together, but given that we have divided them, Habermas seems to me to have more affinity to the first.--StN 02:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it back. If Metamagician disagrees, he can move it again. --Loremaster 18:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.--StN 18:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a revert war over the issue. I can live with it in its current form if you feel strongly.

There's actually quite a lot of material in the BNW section that I don't think belongs there if we were properly analytical, but it's probably too late to do much about it. For future thought, if we ever do restructure the article, I think that one set of arguments is about the loss of value, the possibility of creating an emotionally shallow society, etc. The other argument is about the possibility of breakdown of the social order, genocide, violence, mistreatment etc. I think that only the first has anything much to do with Brave New World. Kass is mainly interested in the former class of arguments. Fukuyama runs both. The main argument I discern in Habermas is something different again, which relates to supposed infringements of autonomy. Most bioethicists seem to regard this as weak, as far as I can make out, so I'm not suggesting that it is an important argument or that it should be in the article. If the argument is about equality (another set of concerns) isn't that what we mean by the GATTACA argument? We seem to have a logical place for each of these sets of concerns, but we are not entirely consistent, or maybe we have different understandings of what the arguments are fundamentally about. Metamagician3000 01:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is overlap in the criticism subsections, as there is in the arguments advanced in the various literary works cited. While this undermines the formal rigor of the Criticisms section, by referring to the various cultural touchstones it makes the whole piece more vivid, and each subsection does have a somewhat different emphasis. That being said, any change in language that would sharpen the differences (as in the "equality" overlap noted above) would improve things.__StN 02:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In the Frankenstein argument, citing Habernas, StN added the following "counter-counter-criticism":

Critics, in turn, point to what they see as the naiveté of treating the specific products of human biological and cultural co-evolution, such as rights and moral values, as ahistorical universals.

I have no problem with this except for the fact that I feel the word "naiveté" might be an ad hominem especially if Habernas didn't use this word so I replaced it with the word "weakness". However, StN replaced it the word "fallacy" and internally linked this word to the Fallacy article. Although Harbenas is entitled to his point of view, I don't think a contributor's POV should be so obvious. I am therefore replacing it with the word "flaws" until StN or someone else suggests something better. --Loremaster 18:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's why I used the formulation "to what they see as". I think this context makes the use of fallacy NPOV.--StN 19:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed your formulation but I still think using the word "fallacy" is too strong and I think the internal link is overdoing it especially when internal links should generally be used to link an article to other articles of relevance and importance in order to better understand the topic of the article (such as Transhumanism and technological singularity for example). --Loremaster 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see the word "fallacy" was re-added (without an internal link). I will leave it be for now. --Loremaster 15:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine. We don't endorse the claim that there is some fallacy - we attribute the claim to Habermas, or whoever it was. That's NPOV (linking would have had a different effect). Metamagician3000 23:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that. However, I was only questioning whether or not this is what Habermas thinks or a biased interpretation of what he thinks. --Loremaster 21:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster is right; it's difficult to find this formulation in Habermas, though I think it is implied. Foucault is a good reference for the view that moral values are sociohistorical products. Foucault, of course, was not responding to transhumanism per se, but the notion of "uplift" attributed to Hughes in the "Frankenstein" section is problematic in many ways to modernist social thinkers. (Uplifted to whose values -- Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, liberal democrat, Neanderthal?) I think referencing Foucault for the perspective of critics of value-universality is appropriate.--StN 01:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Now it's ok. With the Hayles reference added it's exactly to the point.--StN 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and Counter-Criticism

I also feel the stated desire to meet every criticism with a transhumanist response compromises the neutrality of the article. I don't think it should necessarily have the structure: description of Transhumanism, criticisms, defense against criticisms. It should accurately describe the discourse around Transhumanism, but if some recent critiques haven't elicited a cogent rebuttal, why not give the critics the last word?--StN 02:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that providing a transhumanist response to every criticism compromises the neutrality of the article. Since transhumanism cultivates the academic study of the possibilities and consequences of developing and using human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies, transhumanist thinkers spend their time articulating cogent rebuttals to most criticisms circulating in academia and in the public at large. It would theferore be unfair to imply that transhumanists don't have rebuttals by not presenting them in the criticism section of this article. I have no problem giving critics the last word if some recent critiques haven't elicited a cogent rebuttal. However, from everything I have read, I doubt that this is the case. --Loremaster 16:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the important thing, since we've gone down the path of discussing criticisms of transhumanism at such length (which was not strictly necessary in an article like this IMO) is simply to state what the criticisms are and what transhumanists say that may be relevant to the criticisms. It doesn't have to read as if we endorse the transhumanist responses (in fact, some of the transhumanist responses we have reported actually strike me as quite implausible, rather than as cogent, but readers can make up their minds about that). But nor does it have to be a blow by blow report. Metamagician3000 01:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please point out the transhumanist responses we have reported that actually strike you as implausible? --Loremaster 15:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

One of them was the eugenics wars response in its old form before your most recent heavy edit. I still think that the response to the Catch-22 type argument that StN introduced kind of misses the point (though I see this as more a practical argument, and it remains to be seen how much it really applies over time). There may be others but those come immediately to mind. Metamagician3000 01:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a nice article, but the criticism-rebuttal format reads like a promotion of transhumanism to me too. The McDonalds fast-food chain did the same thing here in Australia when the film Super Size Me came out, putting posters in every store, with all the criticisms from the film followed by their own rebuttals. Traces of enthusiasm for transhumanism are evident in the lead section too. "An intellectual and cultural movement"? (Click the link). How about calling it a "philosophy" or a "set of ideas and practices"? Also, take the second sentence: "Derived in part from the philosophical traditions of the Enlightenment and 19th century secular humanism, much transhumanist theory draws on a culture of science and empirical observations of natural phenomena." These theoretical origins aren't explained in the body of the article, which the lead section is supposed to summarise. You could equally say "Derived in part from the philisophical traditions of Eugenics, and 19th century Modernism, much transhumanist theory draws on pseudoscience and science fiction." For me, there's a clear critique of transhumanism from a secular humanist standpoint. Anyone else feel the advocacy could be toned down a little? ntennis 06:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this and would support changes of the kind suggested by ntennis. Comments by an earlier reviewer that the History section seems "corporate" is echoed in the apt McDonald's analogy. The pseudoscience/science fiction remark is absolutely on target. It shouldn't be added to the article, of course, but it highlights the boosterism of the current text.--StN 07:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with almost everything ntennis has said: 1) Beyond the fact that I have already provided a justification for it, the criticism-rebuttal format can be found in many Wikipedia articles without any dispute unless it is written in language that is not neutral. We have all taken great care to remove the "advocacy/boosterist" language in the article; 2) Since the definition of transhumanism provided in the lead is the most accepted definition of transhumanism, written in language that is quite neutral, and ends with a devastating criticsm of the philosophy, mctennis' criticism is invalid; 3) The reason the theoritical origins of transhumanism are no longer explained in the body of the article is because the content was radically altered by contributors who didn't take the lead into consideration so we simply need to restore it; and 4) Parts of ntennis' so-called "secular humanist critique" of transhumanism can be found in different arguments of the Criticisms section. --Loremaster 15:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have only edited this article in the most glancing ways, so I don't have much of an emotional stake in its arrangement. As a matter of fact, I had independently come to much the same conclusion as Loremaster stated above ("transhumanist thinkers spend their time articulating cogent rebuttals to the most criticisms circulating in academia and in public at large"). It seems reasonable to me that only the most recent criticisms will not have standing counter-arguments, though like Metamagician, I don't personally believe all these counter-arguments are all that cogent. A formulaic, blow-by-blow approach to enumerating the verbal volleys back and forth may put too much emphasis on the counterarguments.

If two or three Wikipedians can think of this, I get the definite feeling that a "real" expert would have already written down a statement along these lines. Someone more familiar with the H+ canon would be better placed than I to answer this: has any verifiable source said something resembling Loremaster's point? If so, that would make a good introduction to the Criticisms section, I think. I could easily imagine a lead-in like the following:

Transhumanist thinkers spend their time articulating rebuttals to the criticisms circulating in academia and in public at large, so only the most recent criticisms have gone without a response at all. However, the cogency of these counter-arguments often remains in question. . . (footnote)

With an overall introduction like this, it might not matter if the Criticisms section omitted the counter-arguments we deem less worthy.

Thoughts? Anville 09:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I like Anville's idea, but we'd have to find a neutral, yet authoritative, source, and I really can't think of one. Most writing on this topic is heavily polarised at this stage. Someone needs to write an authoritative introduction to the transhumanism that we could draw on - I mean a big fat book from a major university press - from a scholarly viewpoint that neither advocates transhumanism wholeheartedly nor expresses repugnance at it, but tries to analyse its history and the issues it raises on their merits. That book would be immensely valuable to everyone, but it doesn't exist yet. I'd love to write it, but if I ever do it's at least a few years away. :)

I'll go for another time to look at POV language sneaking in from one side or the other, but I don't see anything POV in, for example, calling transhumanism a cultural movement. Metamagician3000 12:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I appreciate Anville's comments, I don't think this new lead for the Criticism section is necessary. Regarding the article in general, as Maclean already noted, Nick Bostrom has already written a scholarly authoritative introduction to transhumanism that we can draw upon. We simply have to make sure to remove any language we judge to be not neutral. --Loremaster 15:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, for a start I've deleted the following sentence: Derived in part from the philosophical traditions of the Enlightenment and 19th century secular humanism, much transhumanist theory draws on a culture of science and empirical observations of natural phenomena. On reflection, I agree with ntennis's argument that it does not belong in the lead. Perhaps some comment about predecessor theories can be inserted in the history section. I've preserved the sentence here for easy reference. Metamagician3000 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what would be wiser is for the Theory and Practice section to have a paragraph which reflects the sentence in the lead (like it used to in the past) instead of deleting it. --Loremaster 16:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also now cut this out - "As an emergent philosophy that developed out of an American cyberculture in the late 20th century, transhumanism falls within the general category of humanism..." Sorry, Loremaster (or whoever wrote it). This claim has always worried me. Again, we can maybe put in the history that transhumanism is seen by proponents as having historical connections with humanism, but I think that this claim is just too contestable to assert so baldly in the lead. Again, however, I've preserved it here for easy reference if anyone wants to put it back or otherwise use it. Metamagician3000 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I did write "an emergent philosophy that developed out of an American cyberculture in the late 20th century" but it was someone else who added the "transhumanism falls within the general category of humanism" part, which I always thought was contestable and badly worded. I therefore approve of its removal. --Loremaster 16:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll concur with these removals. Oh, and if you'd like a co-author for that big, fat book from a university press, I'll add my pretenses of scholarship. Hey, I've always wanted to turn "original research" into something worthwhile, and this sounds marginally more reputable than The Poser's Guide to Cyberpunk. Anville 15:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Loremaster and Metamagician for the great improvements over the past 12 hours.--StN 18:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's finish the referecing and start the featured article candidacy process. --Loremaster 16:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've just checked the first half and made no changes. I'll check the second half in a minute. I think we should rapidly reach a point of saying that we have a stable article, pending any criticisms in the FA process. I'm not sure what further referencing needs to be done. Metamagician3000 00:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now completed my sweep through the whole article. I made a small number of relatively small changes to ensure accuracy and that we have not editorially endorsed any positions. As far as I'm concerned it can go to FA consideration, but if anyone else wants to improve referencing or whatever that's also fine. Metamagician3000 01:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Eugenics Wars

I've taken the liberty to radically edit the content of the Eugenics War argument due to a lack clarity but also upon hearing and reading that it was being misinterpreted by a few readers. --Loremaster 17:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank StN for improving my sentences. Much appreciated. --Loremaster 18:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This section looks much better now. It was one of the areas where I thought the counter-arguments given to the transhumanists looked rather weak. Whether that was a good thing or a bad thing depends on your POV. But really, the work you guys have done has produced something much better. Metamagician3000 00:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Trolling?

User 212.202.37.164 added the following text to the Criticisms section, which I promptly deleted:

The Disableds Reasoning

The only thing clear is that all this arguing has no point for a society that is based on the principle of ever growing ability. All of the above is cowardice. We have to take risks to gain experience. Besides Your(ALL OF YOU) point is the unwillingness/disability of all to understand/comply to moral standards. A Bit of Explanation: Democratic societies are based upon choice of oneself and the experience and knowledge gained throught failure and the possibility to enhance oneself bychoice through methological means. May it be technology or magic. Without distorting the will of others and helping them to achieve their goals. Unfortunately OUR current society is totally distorted. A way out of this mess is communication. We have to start talking and stop blubbering. Question One: What Do I Want!? Question Two: How Can I Achieve My Goals WITHOUT or LEAST hurting others? We are not at the stage of NOT HURTING anyone, but it's POSSIBLE! And a great goal is to achieve it as fast as we can. 'Question' Three: Can I Do It On My Own? Answer: NO ,'cause it's URGENT. [email protected] this is no trolling if YOU revert the article YOU will have to add my pov soon.

Since this is a clear case of trolling, we should be vigilant for any edits by this user. --Loremaster 21:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead

I removed Francis Fukuyama's name from the lead. I don't think the definition of transhumanism (which numerous other online encyclopedia will mirror) should forever be attached to him nor give him so much "free publicity". So feel free to rephrase the ending if you think it would sound better. --Loremaster 16:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll start my comment with a reassurance to Loremaster that I don't intend to edit the lead section, I'm just offering my personal response — how it reads to a fresh pair of eyes. You may even be able to use it to improve the article! Hopefully my thoughts can be received less defensively this time (also, no need to respond in bold).

To me, the lead section still needs a little more work to remove the rhapsodic tone. Loremaster wrote above: "Since the definition of transhumanism provided in the lead is the most accepted definition of transhumanism, written in language that is quite neutral, and ends with a devastating criticsm of the philosophy, mctennis' criticism is invalid."

Let's start with the "devastating criticism": "Transhumanism has been described by a prominent sympathizer as the "movement that epitomizes the most daring, courageous, imaginative, and idealistic aspirations of humanity"[2]; according to a prominent critic, it is "the world's most dangerous idea".[3]" Next to that gushing string of adjectives, "the world's most dangerous idea" sounds exciting! We're told why it's so great, but not why it's dangerous. Fukuyama didn't even say "the world's most dangerous idea"! The phrase is modified from the title of a series called "The World's Most Dangerous Ideas" in which he wrote an article on transhumanism. I can't help but feel this phrase was chosen over other potential criticism to discredit the critics as simply being fearful of progress, something like the Catholic church vis-á-vis Galileo. In the article, Fukuyama described transhumanism as a movement that threatens equality and seeks to "deface humanity with their genetic bulldozers and psychotropic shopping malls," which would give the criticism a context on a par with the praise. However, I'd rather see the entire sentence removed from the lead section, and a more cogent summary of the main objections in it's place. Specifically, a mention of ethics in the lead section would be good.

Also, why do we need to know — in the lead section no less — that some sympathizers of transhumanism don't refer to themselves as transhumanists? It serves to boost the appearance of support for the movement among ordinary people, which is used as the lead-in to the notion of "fierce critics" — whose views we don't need to really consider anyway, as we're told that the transhumanists have already taken the "possible dangers" into account in the first paragraph.

To me, what is also crucially missing in the lead section is something that distinguishes transhumanism from eugenics because the two look like the same thing as the articles stand. -ntennis 05:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (P.S please don't break up my post with rebuttals but kindly respond below).

ntennis, in my opinion you make a number of valid points about the tone of the lead. It will be important to see how the other main contributors to the article respond to your comments, but it would also be helpful if you took a hand in reformulating some of the text.--StN 06:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually read it the other way. "Fierce critics" implies that they make some powerful points and have transhumanism to some extent on the defensive. The reference to some sympathisers not calling themselves transhumanists suggests that even some people who sympathise are uncomfortable with transhumanism in some way (that was what the words were intended to convey). Also, I think it is quite fair to say that Fukuyama called transhumanism the world's most dangerous idea. He (like others) was asked "What is the world's most dangerous idea?", and he answered "transhumanism" and wrote an article to support the claim. He didn't need to include the literal words (whether or not he actually did so): "Transhumanism is the world's most dangerous idea." His ideas are elaborated later in the article. Remember, this is only the lead that we're talking about. The point at this stage is merely to convey what transhumanism basically is and to motivate the reader to care, partly by establishing that transhumanism is controversial.

I'm open to looking at further changes if you want to make some, but I think I already made the main ones when I agreed with your main points at an earlier stage and removed some substantial text, and reworded other text. Also, be careful not to go the other way and make it appear that we are endorsing the criticisms of transhumanism that are given so much space later in the article. Metamagician3000 06:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

All that said, I bland-ised the sentence about critics and sympathisers, since it was conveying an impression of subtle advocacy to at least one person. Metamagician3000 09:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree that the lead can be misinterpreted by some in the way mctennis has, I think this overemphasis on eugenics is distortive. However, I realize that the reason for this is mostly due to fact that the Criticisms section focuses too much on the issue of genetic enhancement when, from what I have read, most transhumanists are for more interested in cybernetic and nanotechnological enhancement, which happens to be far less controversial. I am therefore removing the mention of eugenics in the lead while I ponder how the Criticisms section could be edited to deemphasize genetic enhancement. PS. I sometimes put my more important comments in bold only to make sure people notice them and not get lost in a sea of comments. It isn't done to convey vehemence. --Loremaster 20:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that I am getting slightly troubled with mctennis's constant insinuation that every sentence in this article is tainted with advocacy. Whether or not transhumanism deserves all the criticisms it is getting, it doesn't alter the reality that transhumanism is, for example, a movement that wants to encourage the study and debate of promises AND dangers of emerging technologies. This isn't "McDonald-like corporate boosterist advocacy". It is a fact which should be stated in the article in the interest of fairness and accuracy. So although some of ntennis's criticisms may have merit, we should be mindful of setting an extreme standard of neutrality that ultimately reduces and distorts the definition of transhumanism simply to appease critics. --Loremaster 20:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think ntennis has been making undue requests. There have just been two posts from this editor and the last one has mainly focused on the lead. The lead IS unbalanced, for the reasons ntennis notes (though Metamagician has improved it significantly). There is no mention of what the critics might object to (and a bit of an insinuation that they are skeptical about science, which reads differently in the United States than it might elsewhere). So I feel that the reference to eugenics (with the qualifier "some critics") is appropriately informative to anyone reading the lead. Check out the lead of the eugenics article -- the objectives are identical to transhumanism. And even though genetic enhancement is currently a small part of transhumanism, it looms large in writings on the "transhumanist future." The publisher's blurb for Hughes's Citizen Cyborg says: "The limits of the human body will be transcended as technologies such as artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and genetic engineering converge and accelerate..." Gregory Stock's writings really emphasize this aspect. I would suggest leaving the Criticisms section mainly as is, and adding the qualms about eugenics back to the lead. If language can be found (though I doubt it can) that either of the two main transhumanist organizations suggest that genetic engineering should not be a major part of the transhumanist future, then this can be added to the responses to criticisms.--StN 00:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the lead is unbalanced. If you look at the vast majority of articles in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias, criticisms are almost never included in the lead definition! As for the issue of eugenics, it is only of many criticisms of transhumanism so mentioning it in the lead would give the false impression that it is the main one when its not (when I would argue that the accusation of scientism is a better candidate). As for making the distinction between transhumanism and eugenics more clear, I think this can and should be done without mentioning the word "eugenics". As for the issue of changing the Criticsm section, I agree that we should leave it as is. --Loremaster 19:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I really think it is highly POV to make comparisons with the eugenics movement, which is discredited because of the actions of the Nazis, the American eugenicists, etc., etc., especially in the lead. Eugenics was not discredited for any goals that it shares with transhumanism but because of its horrifically inhumane methods, authoritarian exercise of state power, false science, and association with groups that demonised Jews and other kinds of human beings who were seen as sub-human. In practice, eugenics was often about eliminating so-called racially inferior types. Transhumanism has none of those characteristics. An association is frequently now used to smear anyone with remotely similar goals - such as enhancing human capacities - and we should not buy into that process; our job is to be neutral, not to privilege a viewpoint. Of course, if we want to say that some particular person, such as Annas or Kass, sees a link with eugenics, that's fine, as long as we attribute and reference, rather than endorsing. However, the lead is not the place for such detail. It is already handled later on in a very prominent way ("Eugenics Wars"). All we should be doing in the lead is defining what transhumanism is, giving a rough idea of its provenance, and foreshadowing that it is controversial. Opening up by smearing it with an association to eugenics is precisely what we should not to be doing in fairness to this movement that has many critics whose views we elaborate in quite extraordinary detail (giving them a lot of good lines - we have gone out of our way to offer eloquent and plausible explications of what people like Dublin, Kass, McKibben, Fukuyama, Annas, etc, etc, have to say, and some of their criticisms are more cogent and important than the eugenics smear - another reason not to give it a specific mention in the lead). Metamagician3000 01:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My idea was actually to add a sentence starting: "Transhumanism is distinct from Eugenics in that..." I don't see how this is a smear; quite the contrary. Anyway, I'm off to friendlier edit zones (for now?), but good luck to ALL with the article and thanks StN for your support. I do hope y'all decide to remove that misattributed Fukuyama quote. Maybe nanotechnology and genetic engineering can lift the article above it's all-too-human flaws? ;) Cheers! ntennis 05:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No unfriendliness intended, and I apologise if it seemed that way. I made several changes based directly on your suggestions and several others after thinking about you view that the article seemed to be rhapsodic about transhumanism. My comments about smears were not directed at you. They were directed at people like Leon Kass, and many others, who do in fact smear technologies they dislike with the word "eugenics". I've been re-reading some of Kass's very emotive material for another purpose over the past few days. And the article had said, not long before I wrote: including some who condemn its affinities with eugenics. This was the sort of thing I was saying was not acceptable because it has us saying that transhumanism has affinities with eugenics. Loremaster evidently removed it before I made any edits today, and I agree with that action. If it had said something like, "including some who allege that it has affinities with eugenics", I wouldn't have been so worried, though I still might have felt that it was too specific for the lead.

Although I didn't agree with every change you suggested, I agreed with a lot them and actually made them. Even where I disagreed, I could see where you coming from, and made changes on the basis that any confusion is always in the text, not the reader. I'm grateful for your comments, and I believe that the discussion with you has helped us strengthen the article. Metamagician3000 07:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, ntennis. Concerning the Fukuyama attribution, I agree with Metamagician that the charge under which Fukuyama wrote his "world's most dangerous idea" essay permits us to attribute this characterization to him as we did (without quotation marks) in the lead, and to accurately state (in the Brave New World section) that he "designates" it as such. Otherwise, I think the piece has been much improved as a result of your comments.--StN 05:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User:64.75.187.197 placed the following comment in the lead: "Main problems with transhumanism is what could happen in a world where people were immortal and where there was no suffering." I removed this, since there are many "main problems with transhumanism" discussed in the article as it currently stands, including this one, which is covered in the "'Enough' argument" section. Placing this comment in the lead gives undue weight to this particular criticism.--StN 15:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

While I don't object to User:64.75.187.197's wanting to end the lead on a positive rather than negative tone, the change this user has made is not acceptable, since it formulates "the world's most dangerous idea" as a quote by Fukuyama. Numerous rewrites in the past were devoted to coming up with the previous, indirect phrasing.--StN 01:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC) The structure of the paragraph is also made awkward by this change: sympathizers -- critics -- critic -- sympathizer. In my opinion it should be reverted to the previous version, but I will wait for contributors more sympathetic to transhumanism than myself to chime in before doing so.--StN 01:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I object. I've reverted the article to an earlier version where the leads ends with a negative note. It not only makes sense in light of the previous sentence but it sounds more dramatic. --Loremaster 01:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Terminator argument

The following sentence appears in this section: "Some precautionists believe humanity's collective intelligence should organize first and thus be ready to overcome any dangers from Skynet-like artificial intelligences that do not share human morality." Unless this can be referenced it should be deleted and the previous sentence joined to the preceding paragraph.--StN 05:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Greenpeace's Future Technologies, Today's Choices: Nanotechnology, Artificial Intelligence, and Robotics; A technical, political and instituational map of emerging technologies might be a reference. --Loremaster 15:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

StN, has this document provided with you with the information you wanted? I think it should find a way to cite it as source in the article. --Loremaster 05:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes--very much so. Thank you for finding this valuable report.--StN 16:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think using the Terminator 3 image is more appropriate, since the Skynet takeover occured during this movie.--SpaceTycoon 02:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You are of course correct about this theme. But the section relates to other themes of the series as well, and the Terminator (1) image is more striking. The two faces on the Terminator 3 image used previously look pretty human to me. I'd be interested in seeing what others say.--StN 02:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As the person who added the Terminator 3 image in the first place, I agree with StN that the Terminator 1 image is more appropriate. --Loremaster 12:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

History/Natasha Vita-More

Unregistered editor 24.27.43.108 added the following to the beginning of the History section:

The history of transhumanism has been approached by several authors. Natasha Vita-More wrote "Transhuman History" for Transhuman.org and in her book Create/Recreate: The 3rd Millennial Culture her essay "The History of the Beginnings of Transhumanist Ideas".^[1] Vita-More claims that "cultural movements, from the Graeco-Romans, Romanesque culture, Humanism, the Renaissance, Romanticism, Modernism, and Postmodernism to transhumanism, carve an eminent mark on history as their trends ripen into social norms or dissolve when newly found social passions come along. Culture and its many movements are forever evolving forward in a perpetual state of progress, overcoming chaos and conflict, changing how we view the world and our place in history. The formation of ideas—vastly divergent in scope—are the result of the many shifts in the social environment. Based a central tenet, these formations, like natures own faulting, erosion and eventual sedimentation, come about because the world and society do change and distinct voices need to be heard. These voices splinter off into established points of view and eventually into formal affiliations."

I removed this, since it is more of a New Age speculation than any kind of scholarly contribution to the history of this subject.--StN 15:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Christopher Sherman is trying to put back and expand Natasha Vita-More's interpretation of transhumanism with language which is inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedic article so I've reverted the article to a previous version. --Loremaster 00:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support you both. This material was doubtless written in good faith, but it was poorly integrated, with no prospect that anyone else could come along and easily integrate it. Also, the last thing we want is a breathless, rhapsodic tone. This article has to be austerely neutral and objective if it is to survive, and hopefully shine, in the forthcoming FA process. if someone has a fact that is important, and which we've missed, let them go to the effort of integrating, attributing, and referencing. Metamagician3000 01:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly attributes are based on historical significance, not biased opinions. Since Vita-More is an historical expert on transhumanism, her essays hold significance. Bty I just learned that she is doing a PhD on transhumanism. C

Vita-More's role in the history of transhumanism is amply discussed in this article. This does not mean that her writings on the subject represent dispassionate historical scholarship, which is the ideal for these entries.--StN 01:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason at all why something by Natasha Vita-More could not be used as a reference with appropriate attribution and referencing for any point that she makes which is not uncontroversial. She is a major figure in the transhumanist movement. But that doesn't mean that her point view of can be dropped into the article in a place where it doesn't fit and with little attempt to integrate it into the existing article, which has been constructed very carefully by people with varying, sometimes opposed, viewpoints, and is now essentially stable. If she has relevant views that have been overlooked, they are relevant. But they should be woven into the article carefully, concisely, in the various appropriate places, and with attribution and referencing each time. Metamagician3000 01:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Vita-More's writings are in league with Donna Haraway, although Haraway has more patience for volumn. If you read Haraway's manifesto, there is a similar tone, and both Haraway and Vita-More are quality writers. Finding a way to weave Vita-More into the history would not deter from the careful construction of this section. Since I am a fan of Haraway and now learning about Vita-More, removing her writings would be counterproductive to this section. C

Why should we give Vita-More special treament that we don't give anybody else? Although I have no problem with someone adding a concise summary of Vita-More's views on transhumanist history, I don't think it is appropriate to cut and paste large portions of her writings which sound more like philosophical musings on transhumanist history rather than an incisive report of historical facts. --Loremaster 15:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I entered a chronological historical account, until you deleted it. Vita-More wrote an essay on the history of transhumanism prior to the Bostrom piece, which in itself reads like a cut and paste from somewhere else. I'd like to see much more careful construction of this entire article.

User:Loremaster is being quite charitable, in my opinion, in referring to Vita-More's windy rhetoric as "philosophical musings." Comparing her favorably as a scholarly thinker to Donna Haraway is simply ridiculous. If User:Christopher Sherman can extract any ideas from her writings (without using extended quotations) which haven't been mentioned in the article up till now, they would be potential candidates for inclusion.--StN 21:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You are being quite biased, in referring to your windy rhetorical jabs.

"Cyberfeminism shares enthusiastically Donna's [Haraway} poetic passions and evocative analytic and performative language…" Department of Women's Studies, University of Maryland College.
"The Cyborg Handbook follows the lead of Donna Haraway, ... manifestly designed solely to seduce the poetic imagination …" [www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/criticalecologies]
"The privilege of the elevated point of view the eagle-eye perspective in Donna Haraway's terminology was ideally that of the poetic mind contemplating over a sight seen." [Blurring the Boundaries of Verbal and Visual, Low and Elite Art. Varga Tünde

Vita-More's concern with bioethical imagery, the future of the human intellect and physicality is profound and original. She is a true poet, as Haraway is, who makes us think about the feminine and the poetic in a world of warfare and religious extremists.

User:Christopher Sherman

No offense but your bias for Natasha Vita-More is evident and problematic. --Loremaster 00:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against Natasha Vita-More, but I do think we have to be very careful how we use the claims of any particular thinker. We should be citing them where necessary to support claims that are necessary for the article. Nothing more (as it were), nothing less. I think that we give her adequate recognition for her historical role in the transhumanist movement. If there is more that should be said about her - e.g. if she has put cogent arguments defending transhumanism in her writings - we should say so in concise summary form, with appropriate sources to reference what she has said. But putting in a lump of her "musings", or whatever, without integration into the article is just not good wikipedia writing. The idea here is to write the best possible neutral, well-referenced article about transhumanism, not to push the ideas of any particular thinker. Metamagician3000 02:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against you and your efforts to support the article, but tactically appointing this article as your property is redolent of cultishness. Wikipedia viewers can search transhumanism and make out the references and the links established by your handling. This article has the makings of a worthwhile article of quality. I commend you efforts but don't screw so fervidly with Wikipedia editors who submit text into this article. User:Christopher Sherman

Any user who has invested as much time and energy as Metamagician3000 in improving and expanding a Wikipedia article will naturally become protectively watchful of it. However your acccusation that he considers this article his "cult-like property" is not only wrong but needlessly inflammatory in light of the fact that he has extensively edited this article to reflect the many criticisms some readers have voiced on this page.
If you had discussed your large text on this talk page before incorporating it in the article without any regards to the work that had been done by other contributors, no one would have "screwed" with you.
Your current attitude is quite confrontational and counter-productive when we have politely suggested compromises to include a version of your text in the article.

--Loremaster 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No more confrontational than your attitude. User:Christopher Sherman

Referencing

Do we still have outstanding issues regarding references that haven't been resolved? --Loremaster 19:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am pasting in an earlier comment of mine in Notes and References:

There are still inconsistencies in the notes and references. Hughes (2002; 2003; 2005), for example, are all in the reference list, but they are the kind of non-journal internet article or talk transcript that many of the notes link to without a Reference entry (like Note 2). Either that, or everything should be moved to the References. --StN 01:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC) --StN 20:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought someone had fixed this. I'll work on it during the next few days but I welcome help. --Loremaster 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't understand the differences between the notes and the references. Is it that one is in alphabetical order while the other is in order of appearance in the article? If that's the only difference, shouldn't the two lists have the same items in a different order? If that's all that's involved, we just have to make sure that everything covered in notes is included alphabetically in the list of references (which is not currently the case). I've tried to keep away from this aspect without a better understanding of how Wikipedia expects its scholarly apparatus to work. By all means teach me now, and I'll try to be useful. Otherwise, I'll just keep out of Loremaster's way. Metamagician3000 02:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

From what I have seen in featured articles the References contains books and articles published in journals and other print media. Notes either cite items in the References or link to things published on the Web. If something was originally published both in print and on the Web I would just use a Note with a link. But if something was published as a book and was later put on the Web (like the Drexler book), we should put the original book on the Reference list, with a link to the Web version. According to this scheme, Hughes (2002), Hughes (2003) and Hughes (2005) are all web publications and should just be linked fron Notes. Hughes (2004) is a book and should stay on the Reference list.--StN 02:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

For Metamagician and others interested: Wikipedia:Citing Sources. --Loremaster 05:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes"'

"It is helpful when footnotes are used that a References section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used."

If that is what we are meant to do it is a matter of making sure that every item mentioned in the notes also gets included alphabeticallu in a References section. That shouldn't be difficult. Metamagician3000 07:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now done ~~a lot~~ most of this, but there's still a ~~lot~~ bit to do. It's not difficult, but it's quite time-consuming. Metamagician3000 08:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

For the articles on the Reference list I suggest using quotation marks around roman font, to distinguish them from books, for which we use italic font. Quotation marks around italics looks bad.--StN 19:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be dictated by the article citation template we are using.--StN 03:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

specifics

The Space Tourism Society URL provided doesn't seem to have anything to do with what it references. Can we find a better source for the relevant material or make some appropriate changes? Metamagician3000 09:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.spacetourismsociety.org/ IS the URL for the organization founded by John Spencer which is mentioned in the history section of the Transhumanism article. The problem is that the website doesn't provide information on the history of the organization and its possible association with proto-transhumanism. --Loremaster 16:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well we need to find another source. Maybe there is something in the Ed Regis book Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition. This is probably the best historical account of early transhumanism, and it's a bit odd - now I think about it - that none of us have been using it to date. Metamagician3000 02:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Loremaster 02:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the following claim is true: Natasha Vita-More staged the performance art piece "Breaking Away" at the EZTV Media venue frequented by transhumanists and other futurists. However the current reference is simply to the web site of EZTV, which does not appear to say any such thing anywhere. Can't we find a better reference? Maybe it's in something she has written — she's a perfectly good primary source for facts about herself. Metamagician3000 11:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Breaking Away" was a film, apparently made in 1979 at the University of Colorado. I don't see any reference that it was a performance piece but I would have to be more diligent about reviewing the cinematic history.

I've replaced "performance art piece" with "experimental film". --Loremaster 16:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

One source might be the Transhumanist Arts & Culture website's page on the history of transhumanist arts. --Loremaster 16:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Kalle Lasn

We make a claim about Kalle Lasn's views but there is no citation to support it. Source? Or should we delete? Metamagician3000 08:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think James Hughes' interview of Kalle Lasn might be a source. Lasn co-wrote the Cyborg Manifesto spoof as a critique of libertarian transhumanist techno-utopianism, and 2) he publicly has identified himself as a neo-luddite who advocates the relinquishment of technological progress. --Loremaster 16:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Biological determinism

I'm puzzled by part of this: A trenchant argument against transhumanism comes from critics who allege subjectivity and biological determinism in the use of concepts such as "limitations", "enhancement", and "improvement". As far as I can see the concept of biological determinism has nothing to do with the argument being put by Annas etc. They may well argue that claims as to what is an improvement fail because they are relative or subjective, or whatever (I have no problem with the word "subjectivity"). But I do not see how they are here accusing transhumanists, or anyone else, of biological determinism - the doctrine that our lives or choices are determined by our biological makeup, leaving nothing to environmental influences or free will. Perhaps some other concept was intended by whoever wrote these words, but it is not apparent to me what it was. Metamagician3000 13:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who added the term "biological determinism". It was used by Dr. Klaus-Gerd Giesen in his criticism of transhumanism's eugenic enhancement positions. He believes biological determinism is the underpinning of these positions. My source is a blog post on the WTA website. --Loremaster 18:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A blog post isn't a reputable source, and the view is attributed to other people, not to this Klaus-Gerd Giesen person. Could you please agree to remove it? It doesn't do justice to the arguments of Annas etc., which don't seem to rely on such a claim, and it raises issues about proper attribution, etc. Metamagician3000 01:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

1. I would disagree that a blog post isn't a reputable source but I won't argue the point.

2. If you read the blog post carefully, you will see that the writer is quoting Klaus-Gerd Giesen. So the real source is Giesen's essay Transhumanism and Human Genetics.

3. If you read the essay, you can clearly see that Giesen is accusing transhumanists of being biological/genetic determinists.

4. By naming this section "Eugenics Wars argument", we have conflated Giesen's criticism of transhumanism (biological determinism and eugenics) with Annas' (eugenics and human-posthuman conflict) when they used to be seperate. Rather than deleting the former, we simply have to make it clear that they are seperate criticims. --Loremaster 02:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that article is indeed the proper source. Unfortunately it is written in French! I've just been struggling to make sense of it. It seems clear that he is accusing transhumanists of "genetic determinism", but it is not at all clear that he connects this with the post-human conflict issues. He actually seems to have more to say about the GATTACA type issues, but my French is nowhere near good enough to work out how much he is pressing this as his own idea and how much he is reporting an issue others have discussed, and trying to draw a conclusion that what we are seeing is irresponsible technophilia. As far as I can make out, his main problem seems to be that transhumanism seeks technological solutions in an inappropriate way.

It's really very difficult struggling with what would be a thorny article even it had been written in English. Can anyone else read it more fluently than I can?

I'll leave it to you to make the necessary changes. Metamagician3000 04:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for future reference, the Verifiability policy states under "Self-published sources" that blogs are not generally acceptable sources. "Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so" (emphasis in original). I will try to make it through Giesen's essay, though it will be at least a few days before I have the free time to give my full attention to it. Anville 20:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph towards the end caught my eye:

Il est vrai que les transhumanistes sont dans leur immense majorité des libertarians anarcho-capitalistes convaincus des seules vertus du marché, et que les œuvres du théoricien néolibéral Friedrich von Hayek figurent sur pratiquement toutes les listes de lectures recommandées. Mais leurs inégalitarisme décomplexé et méritocratie implacable se réduisent en réalité à un fétiche biologique: le désespoir de trouver des solutions sociales et politiques à nos problèmes sociopolitiques d’aujourd’hui les incite à tout ramener au gène héréditaire, en tant que fantasme de la toute-puissance retrouvée de l’individu, quitte à métamorphoser le sujet (humain) en projet (posthumain).

Translated to the best of my ability, it reads:

It is true that a large majority of transhumanists are anarcho-capitalistic libertarians convinced of the sole virtues of the market, and that the works of neoliberal theorist Friedrich von Hayek figure in practically all of their recommended reading lists. But their simplified inegalitarianism and implacable meritocracy reduce in reality to a biological fetish: the despair of finding social and political solutions to today's sociopolitical problems incites them to reduce everything to the hereditary gene, as a phantasm of omnipotence found within the individual, even if it means metamorphosing the subject (human) to a new draft (posthuman).

This isn't exactly easy going, and it's not the kind of writing I would trust to babelfish. Anville 21:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Although Giesen is wrong about all transhumanists being libertarians, I think we should include a version of Giesen's comments in a criticism section of the libertarian transhumanism article. I am therefore removing the mention of biological determinism from the Eugenics Wars argument. --Loremaster 22:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I just had a chance to look at Giesen's article. I think the paragraph that Anville extracted and translated represents Giesen's views accurately. I also think this important Marxist-oriented viewpoint has been scanted in the article up till now and that specific mention should be made of Giesen's critque, as Loremaster did in an earlier version of this article. Giesen does not say, as Loremaster suggests, that all transhumanists are libertarians, but that a large majority are (as Anville correctly translates). I plan to add a sentence or two concerning the Marxist critique in the Eugenics Wars section (maybe with a more inclusive section title) and add Giesen's essay to the References. After the others have looked at this the article may be ready for peer review.--StN 22:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Correction: WTA surveys show that Giesen is wrong that a vast majority of transhumanists are right-wing libertarians. That being said, with the help of a French language professor, I've studied his essay, which uses very biased and even unacademic language, and have found many instances of factual errors and distortions. For example, he cites an essay by Nick Bostrom to claim that transhumanists are nihilists because they allow themselves to speculate and even look forward to a time when genetically-engineered haves and have nots could, over time, even become separate species, unable to interbreed. The reality is that Bostrom was talking and being critical of Lee Silver's naive speculation about this unlikely scenario. There are many other examples of Giesen's intellectual dishonesty, or at the very least, his lack of academic rigor in his essay. Regardless, the major flaw of this essay is that Giesen makes no distinction between liberal/social/radical democratic transhumanists like Bostrom and Hughes and anarcho-capitalist libertarian transhumanists like More and Bailey. Depending how it is done of course, I think relying too much on Giesen's opinions is a mistake. --Loremaster 23:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a word of caution, though. The WTA survey may not give the whole picture. A lot of the old school libertarian transhumanists would be suspicious of the WTA because of the generally left-of-centre politics of its leadership (Hughes and Bostrom). Those people might nonetheless have signed up to join the WTA, but many may not have. I suspect that the survey underestimates the number of transhumanists with right-wing libertarian views. I can't prove this, so I won't be saying it in the article. It's just a possibility to bear in mind. OTOH, it's also worth us keeping in mind that some of the libertarians may have softened their political views - that seems to be the case with Max More. Again, I can't prove this. These reflections just suggest to me that the WTA survey, while it's about the best information we've got, isn't necessarily capturing everything about transhumanists' political views. Metamagician3000 23:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, Giesen is basing his criticisms of transhumanism on his reading of the Extropian mailing lists and, ironically, the writings of James Hughes where he criticizes libertarian transhumanists. That being said, Giesen's criticisms have been included in the libertarian transhumanism article where they belong. By the way, you should all read the Talk:Libertarian transhumanism page to know Vita-More's take on this issue. ---Loremaster 00:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not exactly true that "Giesen is basing his criticisms of transhumanism on his reading of the Extropian mailing lists and, ironically, the writings of James Hughes where he criticizes libertarian transhumanists." For example, Giesen specifically takes issue with the following statement by Bostrom: "Some mothers and fathers might find it easier to love a child who, thanks to enhancements, is bright, beautiful, healthy, and happy." You may not think this is eugenicist -- I happen to -- but in any case, it has nothing to do with the Extropians or Hughes's criticisms of them.--StN 01:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I mispoke. What I meant to say is that when Giesen attacks transhumanists for being inegalitarian/hyperindividualistic/meritocratic libertarians, he is basing his views on his reading of Extropian mailing lists and James Hughes's criticism of Extropian transhumanists (see Politics of Transhumanism which Giesen cites) while making it seem that both Bostrom and Hughes (and by extension all members of the WTA) hold these sociopolitical views. That's dishonest. As for Bostrom's comment, which is a hypothetical argument not a position that he necessarily holds, I am not disputing whether or not it is "eugenicist". However, when using this label, one must be careful to distinguish between old eugenics (mass sterilization and human selective breeding) and new eugenics (the use of reproductive and genetic technologies by parents). It would be unfair to imply that Bostrom is a paleoeugenicist. --Loremaster 16:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I approve of the inclusion of StN's version of Giesen thoughts in the Eugenics Wars argument since it was done in an appropriate way. --Loremaster 16:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm much happier with the way this has now been done. Metamagician3000 03:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Transhumanism userbox delete

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#Template:User_transhumanist_and_Template:User_anti-transhumanist. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually think that it's appropriate to keep statements of political, religious or philosophical viewpoint out of template space, but there should be a policy on it. If needed, the Powers that Be should simply formally announce a policy with a completion deadline, given Jimbo's announced views. I don't dispute their right to decide issues like this. However, I disagree with the way some admins are trying to make de facto policy on this controversial issue by taking such actions, then leaving people to defend templates in individual templates for deletion reviews. Accordingly, I voted to undelete these userboxes. Metamagician3000 04:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Since it's too late to purge userboxen from the collective memory of the Wikipedia community, I believe we should go for the rule of law rather than the rule of man. Anville 21:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Transhumanist conspiracy?

User talk:Christopher Sherman and User talk:Egghead2001 might be attempting to "character assassinate" some of the contributors of this article. Please see their respectives talk pages to discuss the issue in a civil manner. --Loremaster 02:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

From the User talk: Loremaster page:

I would like to ask you to give your real names when editing this Article, if you have nothing to hide. For the record, you bullied my contribution without compromise and discarded the content as insignificant by your biased standards. Wikipedia states - "policy, nonetheless, is that articles must be written from a Neutral Point of View, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias." Forgetting this, you deleted my entry based on your bias and then made personal attacks on my entry. Wikipedia states - "When discussing an issue, stay cool and don't mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary." The inflammation is on your part since I came here in good faith and you blocked me. I have the right to edit these pages just as you do, although I did not delete your entries and then make personal attacks on people. If you want this Article to be a fine piece of writing then represent "all majority and significant-minority views" fairly. (Wikipedia) Christopher Sherman

Christopher,

Correct me if I am wrong but Wikipedia does not have a policy that requires people to use their real name.
There is no way for us to know that Christopher Sherman is your real name!
Although I chose the user name Loremaster simply because I thought it sounded perfect for a contributor to what can be considered an online collection of "lore", I didn't do it to hide my real identity. However, after an ugly experience with another user who threatened to slander other Wikipedia users on his website simply because we (and Wikipedia moderators) disapproved of his vandalism of a particular article, I've decided to remain anonymous to protect my privacy and reputation from lone nuts.
For the record, we never attacked you personally. However, all your contributions to Wikipedia are open to criticism. Don't confuse yourself with the content of your contribution.
Metamagician said it best on the User talk:Egghead2001 page: The objectivity of my edits speaks for itself. I am simply insisting that all claims for and against transhumanism, or otherwise, be accurate, properly attributed, and well-referenced. I want the article to be the best possible resource for anyone (e.g. university students) who is interested in the subject. I am currently focused on cooperating with StN (whose views are very different from mine), Loremaster (who perhaps has broadly similar sympathies, but doesn't always agree with me), and anyone else who wants to contribute, in an effort to make the article comprehensive, rigorous and stable enough for Featured Article status. That's as far as it goes. The record shows that StN, Loremaster and I have all had a lot of disagreements among ourselves. We've been handling them in an amicable and mature way, I think, but we are far from being a gang of conspirators.
Metamagician has also explained to you that: I have nothing against Natasha Vita-More, but I do think we have to be very careful how we use the claims of any particular thinker. We should be citing them where necessary to support claims that are necessary for the article. Nothing more (as it were), nothing less. I think that we give her adequate recognition for her historical role in the transhumanist movement. If there is more that should be said about her - e.g. if she has put cogent arguments defending transhumanism in her writings - we should say so in concise summary form, with appropriate sources to reference what she has said. But putting in a lump of her "musings", or whatever, without integration into the article is just not good wikipedia writing. The idea here is to write the best possible neutral, well-referenced article about transhumanism, not to push the ideas of any particular thinker.

--Loremaster 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Note pertinent to point #1: the Wikipedia Contributing FAQ states quite simply, "Real names are not required; some Wikipedians use real names; some don't." The Why create an account? page says, in bold, "You do not need to reveal your offline identity." Anville 21:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Anville. --Loremaster 21:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

External links

I am particularly concerned about the external links. Given the fact that objectivity and neutrality on this subject required making half or more of the article deal with criticisms, it throws to whole thing out of balance to have a gallery of about fifty sites promoting transhumanism, with two or three raising questions about it. Without some kind of triage this section will look very peculiar to reviewers.--StN 05:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to wonder why we need any of them at all. The "Blogs" section is entirely superfluous and is basically an open invitation for random C-list bloggers to parade their vanity. Wikipedia is not a link repository. If an organization is significant, it should already be discussed in the article or have an article of its own, in which case its home page URL is provided in a footnote or in the dedicated article.

Granted, this is the most extreme possible position, but I think there's a case for it. An awful lot of the links here fall into the "avoid" section of the External links guideline, particularly under items 2, 3 and 10. Anville 09:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that balance and objectivity required that we discuss all these criticisms. Criticism sections for Wikipedia articles are usually very brief, and we could quite properly have done no more than list half a dozen dot points saying what the main criticisms have been (with brief parenthetical comments like this about what transhumanists say in response to each). The criticisms kind of took over the article, and to ensure neutrality it was necessary to say what transhumanists say in response to all those criticisms. But in the end, the article is supposed to be "Transhumanism" not "Criticisms of transhumanism" or even "The rights and wrongs of transhumanism". External links should point to the reader to further information about transhumanism. If that information rebalances the article away from its over-emphasis on controversy and criticisms, that is really a good thing. (We certainly don't need sites for anti-transhumanist bodies in this article, any more than the article on the Republican Party should have the website for the Democrats.)

That said, I would not object to some culling to ensure that any external links which go beyond the things covered in the references really are needed and notable. I'm surprised at how many there are. That particularly applies to blogs. If those blogs are so important, they probably belong to organisations or people who are themselves notable, and should be mentioned in the articles on those organisations or people. For example, I don't think we need Andy Miah's blog here, but we probably do need it for his own article or the article on IEET. I'd say, "Cull, but with caution." Metamagician3000 13:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Metamagician. --Loremaster 15:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose removing the blogs, as suggested by Anville, and eliminating the links that are redundant with existing References and internal links (e.g., Extropy Institute, History of Transumanist Thought; Center for Genetics and Society). The External links section can be retitles something like: "Manifestos, organizations and portals additional to those discussed in the main article."--StN 15:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this. --Loremaster 15:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Diacritical marks

I am finding that letters with diacritical marks have become corrupted over the past day. I fixed Übermensch, but now I see the same thing has happened to Raëlism. I have seen this on several independent computers.--StN 22:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I fixed Jürgen Habermas. --Loremaster 23:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Extropy Institute closing doors

http://www.extropy.com/future.htm

NEXT STEPS - Extropy Institute is closing its doors and opening a window for a proactive future.

Dear Members of Extropy Institute and new core group network,

This letter is an announcement of the events taking place at Extropy Institute as a result of its Strategic Plan 2006. A copy of the Plan is included for your review. The Plan identifies some factors that ExI's Board has considered in assessing the future of ExI and the best possible course of action to take for ExI, its members, and other stakeholders.

The Past. ExI was formed in 1990 by Max More and Tom Bell with a mission to bring great minds together to incubate ideas about emerging technologies, life extension and the future. ExI's goals were to (1) develop an elegant, focused philosophy for transhumanism-the philosophy of "Extropy"; (2) encourage discussions and debates on improving the human condition; and (2) develop a culture for activists, energized and devoted to bringing these ideas to the public. The initiatives which realized these goals are (1) Extropy: the Journal of Transhumanist Thought; Principles of Extropy; Extro Conferences 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; public forums such as the famed "extropians" and "extropy-chat" email lists; public presentations in the news, radio, televised documentaries, talk shows, and films; and the VP Summit of 2004 addressing the backlash from conservatives against technological advancements.

The Present. ExI deems its mission as essentially completed. With this said, and in respect for Extropy Institute's legacy of achievement, the Board voted and has unanimously agreed to close Extropy Institute's doors.

Extropy Institute's website is being memorialized by turning it into a reference "Library of Transhumanism, Extropy, and the Future," -the beginnings, currents, and future of Transhumanism.

On behalf of our members, I would like to thank Max for authoring the philosophy of Extropy1 and for his many efforts in working with others to steer the philosophical development of transhumanism, which is truly treasured by so many people in so many places.

The Future. As you will see by reviewing the Strategic Plan, the Proactionary Principle stands first and foremost as the concept with the most potential for being of great service to humanity and transhumanity as we go forward. The Proactionary Principle (ProP) can help society by bridging the growing gap between conservative views and progress-oriented views, and educating society about the future. Meeting these two challenges by providing an active course of action can be of tremendous benefit to us all.

In respect for the philosophy of Extropy and the Principles of Extropy, the Board of Extropy Institute believes that Extropy Institute has served its mission and achieved its goals and, in practicing the Principles of Extropy, our next step is to focus on developing worldwide awareness of the ProP and a network for proactive futures.

With my most sincere thanks for your support,

Natasha Vita-More Extropy Institute, President

--Loremaster 12:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the Second Law of Transhumodynamics requires that the extropy of a closed system always tend to a minimum.

Sorry; couldn't resist. I just came from the dentist, where I learned to rue my soda-swilling ways. While dentistry like all medicine makes me thankful and amazed by our scientific progress (Madame de Pompadour was famous for still having her teeth at age twenty-five), leaning back in the Chair and staring up into that Light sure makes me wish I could upload my ghost into a less fallible body.

This is very funny, Anville. Not long ago I would have actually assumed that Extropy was something your dentist gave you to ease the pain.--StN 22:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

And now that the Extropy Institute has closed its doors, check out the Entropians of my old tech school. Anville 17:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference Vita-More History was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Vita-More_History-1] Cite error: The named reference Vita-More History was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]