Talk:Transhumanism: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:07, 9 June 2006

Latest revision as of 18:04, 12 April 2025

Line 1:

{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}}

{{featured|53177243}}

{{Controversial}}

{{Mainpage date|June 2|2006}}

{{ArticleHistory|action1=FAC

{{0.5 nom}}

|action1date=23:36, 22 March 2006

{{oldpeerreview}}

|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Transhumanism Archive 1

{{HistSci}}

|action1result=not promoted

|action1oldid=45015660

|action2=GAN

__TOC__

|action2date=01:30, 3 April 2006

== Archive ==

|action2result=listed

''Archives of previous discussions can be found at:''

|action2oldid=46674527

*[[/Archive 1]]

*[[/Archive 2]]

*[[/Archive 3]]

*[[/Archive 4]]

*[[/Archive 5]]

*[[/Archive 6]]

*[[/Archive 7]]

*[[/Archive 8]]

*[[/Archive 9]]

|action3=PR

---

|action3date=04:09, 12 April 2006

|action3link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Transhumanism/archive1

|action3result=reviewed

|action3oldid=47975661

|action4=FAC

==IMPORTANT: New Contributors==

|action4date=17:52, 14 May 2006

|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Transhumanism

|action4result=promoted

|action4oldid=53147742

|action5=FAR

Having invested a lot of time and energy in editing the Transhumanism article, the primary contributors insist that all claims for and against transhumanism, or otherwise, be accurate, properly attributed, and well-referenced. We want the article to be the best possible resource for anyone (e.g. students, journalists, cultural critics) who is interested in the subject. Despite having conflicting views, we all cooperated in an effort to make the article comprehensive, rigorous and stable enough for '''Featured Article''' status. Therefore, we recommend that you take the time to discuss any major addition or deletion of article content in this talk page before proceeding otherwise the article may be reverted to an older version. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 00:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

|action5date=13:49, 29 May 2012

|action5link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Transhumanism/archive1

|action5result=removed

|action5oldid=493344500

|maindate=June 2, 2006

:While it is indeed an excellent article, I don't think any special procedures for handling future edits are warranted. I would worry about setting a precedent for other Featured Articles, some of which fall far below the quality standards set here (see the May 31 [[Nostradamus]] article for an example).--[[User:CJGB|Chris]] 01:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

|currentstatus=FFA

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Technology}}

{{WikiProject Transhumanism |importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Futures studies |importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Religion |importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=Mid |ethics=yes |contemporary=yes |social-and-political=yes}}

{{WikiProject Alternative Views |importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Sociology |importance=Low |Social movements=y}}

{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=WikiEditorial101|date=May 5, 2017}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 17

|minthreadsleft = 5

|minthreadstoarchive = 3

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:Transhumanism/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target= Talk:Transhumanism/Archive index

|mask= Talk:Transhumanism/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=

}}

{{Archives|auto=short|collapsible=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=90|index= /Archive index}}

== Olaf Stapledon ==

::I wasn't proposing any special procedure. I was simply pointing out something that is common sense on Wikipedia. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 18:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Last and First Men (and Starmaker, for that matter), while fictitious and androcentric, may be a relevant work to mention here, as the entirety of it is concerned with transhumanism and posthumanism (albeit from the perspective of a man in the 1930s). It also is a somewhat less disturbing and semi-psychopathic work that many others in the field, owing partially to it's (unusal for the genre) disregard for the pursuit of personal immortality.

==Movement?==

The article, I think, needs to flesh out a bit more what it means for transhumanism to be a movement. Perhaps I'm missing it if it's there, or just not getting what movement means to other people. The thought, philosophy, shared point of view of transhumanism is described; organizations, meetings, and published works are mentioned; but the movement part isn't quite coming through for me. Regards, [[User:Cam|Cam]] 01:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

== How do you go about looking for a better source? ==

:My self-published small book ''Create/Recreate: The 3rd Millennial Culture'' covers the cultural/social movement of transhumanism. I noticed it is not mention in this entry. Here is a link http://www.transhumanist.biz/createrecreate.htm I do not know the protocol for these types of things, so forgive me if I should have taken on a pseudonym for my editorial comments, but I prefer to appear as myself. :-) (Email me privately if I need to use a pseudonym, [e-mail]) Best wishes, Natasha Vita-More

I ask because it says the following line on the main article needs a better source:

::Mrs Vita-More, I agree that [[CREATE/RECREATE]] should be mentioned in the article. As for your question about protocol, you don't need to take a pseudonym for your editorial comments. However, although you don't have to, I encourage you to create a user account. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 21:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Another topic of transhumanist research is how to protect humanity against existential risks, such as nuclear war or asteroid collision."

Why is this source not adequate: Kirsch, Adam (June 20, 2020). [https://www.wsj.com/articles/looking-forward-to-the-end-of-humanity-11592625661 "Looking Forward to the End of Humanity"]. ''Wall Street Journal''. And how should a user look for a better one? [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 21:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

==Adding images of transhumanists?==

== The new logo ==

[[Max More]]: http://www.kurzweilai.net/bios/images/more.jpg

Why was the "Humanity Plus" logo changed? [[User:SWeinblatt|SWeinblatt]] ([[User talk:SWeinblatt|talk]]) 00:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

[[Natasha Vita-More]]: http://www.extropy.org/images/Image11.jpg

:I'd agree that this would be a pretty standard image to put on top of the intro section. Should I add it back in? [[User:MutuallyAssuredDeduction|MutuallyAssuredDeduction]] ([[User talk:MutuallyAssuredDeduction|talk]]) 17:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

[[Nick Bostrom]]: http://transhumanism.org/images/Nick%20Bostrom.jpg

== Jesuitry ==

:A colleague of mine who has contacted Nick Bostrom tells me that he gives us permission to use the image linked to above or any image found on his website at http://www.nickbostrom.com or http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/Nick%20Photos.htm. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

{{tq|... DNA/genome stewardship by an institution analogous to the Jesuits' 400-year vigil ...}}

::I just read an announcement of this article and I am impressed with the quality. You all have my full premission to use a picture of me, and you can best get one at http://www.extropy.org/directors.htm . Other images are at http://www.natasha.cc or http://www.transhumanist.biz

Vigil over what? [[User:Tamfang|—Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 02:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

::Max More also gives permission to use his image which you can find at http://www.maxmore.com

== Fix pls ==

::Now I am going to read more about this piece. Best wishes, Natasha Vita-More

In the "Growth of transhumanism" section, the blockquotes do not have the reference at the end like seems to be customary here. Can't copy the reference in there, though. Pls help. [[User:MutuallyAssuredDeduction|MutuallyAssuredDeduction]] ([[User talk:MutuallyAssuredDeduction|talk]]) 17:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I've uploaded the images I had selected and listed at the top of this section. They can now be found in the respective articles of More, Vita-More and Bostrom. However, I'm still debating whether or not we should add these images to the Transhumanism article. I'm concerned with the possible self-promotion factor... --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 22:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

::::I share Loremaster's concern. I suggest just leaving the MM, NV-M and NB in their respective articles.--[[User:StN|StN]] 22:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::I agree with your suggestion. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 23:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::I'm not sure where to make this comment, so I'll just put it here. Why are you resistant to giving credit to Max More? I sense some tension here and I don't understand it. You have "In 1988, philosopher Max More founded the Extropy Institute and was the main contributor to a formal doctrine for apolitical and libertarian transhumanists," This is another low-blow. Please understand that you must put your political directives behind you and realize that Max More first wrote about transhumanism before FM, and before Nick Bostrom. Nick is a fine person and made many important contributions to transhumanism, but that does not affect the fact that Max wrote about transhumanism without reference to any political viewpoint. I remember it because I first read Max's writings on transhumanism in a magazine in the late 1980s. Just rewrite what you have and give credit to Max for being the father of transhumanism. He earned it. Best wishes, Natasha Vita-More

:::::::Mrs. Vita-More, I've edited the article to reflect your criticism. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 18:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

==Transhumanist Art Manifesto==

I don't see emphasis about the Transhumanist Art Statement manifesto which had critical impact on how transhumanism was expressed in the 1980's. It should be included since it written about in Wired and covered at the London Museum of Contemporary Art. It is also in a collection of earthly artifacts on the ESA space probe to Saturn. (Impressive). [[User:Christopher Sherman|Christopher Sherman]]

:The Transhumanist Art Statement is mentioned in the last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the History section. However, I have no problem with someone emphasing its importance. We could also work it in the Fiction and Art section. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 02:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

::The link is missing within the article. Here it is for you http://www.transhumanist.biz/transhumanistartsmanifesto.htm I noticed that a link is missing from the Transhuman UPdate as well. This is not a very good link, but it authenticates the show and perhaps I can ask my webmaster to fine tune that page. http://www.natasha.cc/activist.htm Thank you. Natasha Vita-More

:::The first link you mention is in the Reference section. However, we should include the second one that is missing. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

== External links ==

A comment from the Featured Article Candidate page:

:''There are 20 external links to organizztions not disccused in the article. I would like to see these dealt with within article or changed to ''See Also'' wikilinks to their corresponding articles. If they are not notable enough to have an article I wonder if we should be linking to them at all --[[User:BirgitteSB|<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β</font>]] ʈ [[User talk:BirgitteSB|<small><font color="#778899">Talk</font></small>]] 17:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)''

I agree that something could be done to improve the External links section. However, according to a Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in ''See also'', try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles have no ''See also'' sections. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 21:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

:We should follow the [[Wikipedia:External links]] guidelines. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 20:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

==Gattaca argument==

Expanding the captions under the Gattaca movie poster made its lenght is problematic since it now "infringes" on the space of the argument below. However, this made me realize that we should consider expanding the Gattaca argument section using the information in the [[Gattaca#Criticism|Gattaca article's criticism section]]. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 20:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

===Libertarian response===

I've removed the following text from the article:

''Libertarian transhumanists acknowledge that inequities in the distribution of new technologies may be a problem in the short term, but suggest that market forces and resulting efficiencies would lower prices and increase availability in the long term. They point to the many products for which this has occurred in human history and assert that the same will be the case for body-modification technologies. Plastic surgery, for example, is now far more affordable than it was even five years ago.''

Simon Young, the anonymous user who added this text, should cite a source before including it in the article. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 00:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[[Simon Young]] himself says: Sorry, but I didn't write the above text! Who, one wonders, put in in my name??? ([e-mail])

I've seen similar claims made quite frequently. Kurzweil's ''The Singularity is Near'' may be a good source (with the claim expressed in such a way that it is attributed to Kurzweil, rather than endorsed by us). I'd guess that Simon Young's own book might be another (with the same caveat), but I haven't yet read it. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 14:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Simon Young says: Well, I hope you get round to it soon! Cheers! ([e-mail])

:I would support the latter suggestion if Simon Young can desmonstrate that his book contains such claims. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 14:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Simon Young says: I shall certainly aim to 'desmonstate' all my claims regarding Transhumanism. ([e-mail])

::Mr. Young, my apologies. I wrongly assumed that you were the anonymous user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=83.71.74.102 83.71.74.102 ] who added a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transhumanism&oldid=53143333 libertarian response to gattica criticism]". This text was then edited and improved by [[User:StN]]. I deleted this text because it didn't cite a source. However, the question remains whether or not your book contains such an argument. If it does, the text will put back in the article and your book will be cited a source. That being said, Mr. Young, do you realize how much your hysterical and obnoxious behavior has severely damaged your credibility as a serious transhumanist advocate? Despite all its flaws, [[Wikipedia:Guidelines|Wikipedia has policies and guidelines]] which you have constantly violated. I suggest you learn them quickly otherwise you risk getting banned. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 14:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

===Repeated argument===

Isnt the eugenics wars argument essentially the same as the gattaca argument... just a thought

:These definitely overlap, but there are some differences. The emphasis in the Gattaca argument is unequal access to resources, assuming that the resources (enhancement technologies) are really of value. In the eugenics wars argument the emphasis is on biological divisions that can ensue from use of such technologies, and the conflict it would lead to, regardless of whether the modification technologies actually prove to be a positive benefit.--[[User:StN|StN]] 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

===Text removed===

I nixed the following paragraph from the ''Gattaca'' section:

:Another argument presented in Gattaca, is the idea that artificial genetic superiority is a fleeting supplement for true drive and ambition. In the film, many of the transhumans, or 'valids' have a lack of motivation because they have accepted that their average efforts are beyond human excellence. However, their efforts are matched and surpassed by an ordinary human. An analogy to this could be seen as losing weight via surgery versus healthy diet and exercise. While they both achieve a desired result of weight reduction, one is an artificial solution and ultimately hollow, while the other is brought about through effort and determination, and therefore more meaningful.

First, it requires a copy-edit. Second, it needs [[Wikipedia:No Original Research|more footnotes]]; and third, even if fully attributed to external sources, it might more properly belong in the ''[[Gattaca]]'' article. [[User:Anville|Anville]] 00:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The argument here is really a version of the "Enough" argument, if I understand it. Moreover, this seems to be going beyond the hazy limit to which a movie can be used as a source for its obvious content into subtle matters of critical interpretation. That is original research. I suggest that if the material cam be attributed to a reputable movie critic it be moved to the [[Gattaca]] article and sourced. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 03:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

== Enough section ==

I've found the source for Bailey's criticism of Bill McKibben' argument: [http://www.reason.com/0310/cr.rb.enough.shtml Enough Already: A leading environmentalist makes a foolish case against technological innovation]

--[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 18:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

:The Enough counter-argument needs to be expanded with some other source as well. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 18:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

==Images?==

We should work on finding new images for the article. For example, a picture of Aldous Huxley for the Brave New World argument would be appropriate. An image of Natasha's Vita-More PRIMO would be perfect for the Lead or the Fiction and Art section. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 18:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:Primo Posthuman: http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/images/vitamoreprimo02.jpg --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 18:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::You have my permission to use an image of "Primo Posthuman," just google it and copy. Best wishes, Natasha Vita-More.

:::Thank you. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 21:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

::::I've added the image to the Fiction and Art section. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 22:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::I've also added the Primo Posthuman image to the [[Posthuman (Human evolution)]] article while I've added the Posthuman Future image to [[The Chronicle of Higher Education]] article. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 15:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

== Userbox ==

Is there currently a Transhumanist userbox? There was one previously, that I was using, but it was deleted in one of those random userbox deletion sprees. Thanks.

:[[User:MSTCrow|MSTCrow]] 00:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no template - which I think is appropriate as I think that all such userboxes expressing adherence to a religious, political , philosophical, etc., belief should gradually be removed from template space. However, if you want I can help you userfy the old box, or you can feel free to copy the code for the box that merely expresses ''interest'' in transhumanism from my userpage. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 02:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::How is expressing interest different from expressing support? Oh, and if you look at the tail end of my userboxes, you'll that I'm strong supporter of userspace expression.

:::[[User:MSTCrow|MSTCrow]] 02:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There's obviously a huge difference between expressing interest in something and supporting it. I am interested in many belief systems that I actually disagree with (not so much transhumanism, as it happens, since I have a lot of sympathy for it, blah, blah). Anyway, this is not the place to debate userbox policy. I told you my view and offered in good faith to help you. Do you want my help or not? [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 07:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

== Robert A. Heinlein ==

No mention is made of Robert A. Heinlein's novels "Time Enough for Love" (1973), "Stranger in a Strange Land" (1961), and especially "Beyond This Horizon" (1942), the latter of which is described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_This_Horizon as follows:

"The novel depicts a world where genetic selection for increased health, longevity and intelligence has become so widespread that the unmodified 'control normals' are a carefully managed minority. The world has become an economic utopia; the "economic dividend" is so high that work has become optional. ... Hamilton Felix is the genetically optimum, but philosophically disenchanted, man who ends up being convinced that his society is worth saving after all." --[[User:zeeblebot|zeeblebot]] 00:07, 02 June 2006 (PST)

:Neither book seems more than tangentially related to Transhumanism (I don't see how ''Time Enough for Love'' is even tangentially related actually). And the only connection between transhumanism and ''Beyond This Horizon'' is transhumanism dubious connection to eugenics (a tangential relation to a tangential relation). [[User:Brentt|Brentt]] 07:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::this page, "Some transhumanists argue that parents have a moral responsibility called procreative beneficence to make use of genetic engineering methods, assuming they are safe and effective, to have healthy children with maximum potential. " leads to the wiki for Procreative_beneficence which links to "Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children." (Savulescu J.), which starts with "Eugenic selection of embryos is now possible by employing in vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). ", blahblahblah. (And re "Time Enough for Love", I forgot to include "Methuselah's Children", hope that makes it clearer.) --[[User:zeeblebot|zeeblebot]] 00:56, 02 June 2006 (PST)

:I strongly agree that one or a few of books of Robert Heinlein should be mentioned in the Fiction and Art section. I was planning on adding a mention before this issue was brought up by zeeblebot. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 18:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::StN, can you add a mention of Heinlein? --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 22:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

== Physics of immortality / Correctable Flaws==

Didn't you consider [[Frank Tipler|Frank Tipler's]] book ''The Physic's of Immortality'' ISBN 0385467990 as an important contribution to transhumanism? Despite it's flaws the book struck me 10 years ago because of it's (for me) unprecedented boldness of imagination.

As non-native speaker (and not a transhumanist either), and because this is the featured page I would rather ask somebody of the previous contributors to reflect on the book. I believe that Anders Sandberg has commented it on one of his pages.

--[[User:Juela|Juela]] 07:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:Works such as Tipler's are indeed influential on some transhumanists. I'm not sure what I could say about it concisely, but a careful sentence on it somewhere in the theory and practice section or the spirituality section (for example) would not strike me as out of place at all. If anyone does this, please remember to put the book in the references and notes. :) [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 07:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::I believe that this was the book to which [[Michael Shermer]] gave a dressing-down in ''Why People Believe Weird Things.'' Not to say that I agree with either of them in all particulars, naturally, but since we keep balancing arguments with counter-arguments, it might be useful to remember. I'll try hunting the Shermer book down. [[User:Anville|Anville]] 14:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:::God bless the search engines which the sages of 1980s hypertext never foresaw. Yes, I remembered the book correctly, as [http://skepdic.com/refuge/weird.html the Skeptic's Dictionary indicates]; now, I just need to hunt down a copy of it. In lively discourse, no assertion goes undisputed! (-: [[User:Anville|Anville]] 16:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Personally, I think Tipler's work is pseudoscience but I wouldn't be opposed to it being mentioned in the Spirituality section if one can provide a notable source linking his work with transhumanist thought. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 19:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::Loremaster, a lot of what is said and written by people who call themselves transhumanists is indeed pseudoscientific. A case in point is the document on "Correctable Flaws" that you excluded because academic transhumanists didn't think it was reputable. We have to be careful about not censoring the range of transhumanist views and producing an article that would more properly be titled "Academic Transhumanism." A comprehensive treatment would include the fringe, which could be distinguished, where appropriate, from the academic mainstream.--[[User:StN|StN]] 19:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::I agree. However, I don't think a Wikipedia encyclopedic article should give undue importance to fringe works or be used specifically to promote these works. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 16:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Tell that to the ''[[Bogdanov Affair|frères Bogdanoff]].'' And, for that matter, to the folks who post links to mystic gibberish on the [[quantum mechanics]] article. (sigh) [[User:Anville|Anville]] 00:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Hey Anville, transhumanism is hardly quantum mechanics. I think one of the problems with the article as it stands is that by solemnly and uncritically discussing notions like the [[technological singularity]], [[mind uploading]], and [[cryonics]], it gives them the aura of science, rather than what they are -- wishful thinking.--[[User:StN|StN]] 01:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC) And that's just the academic stuff! My feeling is that we should have a paragraph under Theory and Practice that also describes non-academic, rank-and-file, science fiction-infused transhumanists, who generate documents such as the [[genetic determinism|genetically-determinist]], [[self-loathing|human body-loathing]] ''Catalog Of Correctable Omnipresent Human Flaws''. Unless I hear persuasive reasons not to from the main contributors to the article, or anyone else, I may insert such a paragraph in the next few days.--[[User:StN|StN]] 02:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be massively disproportionate to devote more than a sentence to this "Catalog". If it is discussed for the purpose of trying to create a certain impression about the credibility of transhumanism, one way or the other, that is in breach of NPOV. All the document demonstrates is that at least one transhumanist wants to modify the human body and has gone to the trouble of creating a specific list of desired changes. I have no problem with the document being cited to support that claim, but I'd have a big problem if we started saying that therefore such modification would be a good thing, or conversely that some transhumanists are genetic determinists in some specifiable sense or that they hate corporeality. Some self-identifying transhumanists perhaps do hate corporeality, judging by the fact that some people post in transhumanist forums in a way that seems to uncritically embrace the idea of "the meat" (which was definitely not presented uncritically by William Gibson etc), but I've never seen any serious transhumanist thinker talk that way. It's more a certain hacker fringe, or something.

My general view remains the same. I'm not opposed to any particular document being mentioned, but we need to retain a sense of proportion. I'd also think that we should be trying to keep the article as stable as we can, now it has been featured. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 03:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

:I think the version you posted is fine. I was not planning to critique the document in the article. In fact, the version I posted after GoodCop's initial post on June 2 was:

:The Catalog Of Correctable Omnipresent Human Flaws by Edward Smith [28] describes in detail a large number of claimed defects in human anatomy and physiology that some transhumanists favor correcting in human zygotes if associated genes can be identified.

:which isn't too different in tone from yours.

:My characterization of the document on this page was just to point out that the document represented a strain of transhumanism not covered up till now in the article. This is also GoodCop's position. Readers can link to the document and judge its merits for themselves.--[[User:StN|StN]] 17:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

::I've moved the sentence to the top of the third paragraph of the Theory and practice section. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 23:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

== Comments ==

Congratulations on this article - it's very well written and thoroughly researched. If I had to come up with any negative criticism, it might be that the intro is a bit weak, and that it comes off as somewhat biased towards transhumanists (every section seems to end with "but transhumanists say that isn't true because..."). Perhaps some counter-rebuttals are in order. The first thing it made me think of is [[Ghost in the Shell]], particularly the original movie which explicitly portrayed a negative view of transhumanism in its dialogue, and I'm glad to see it was mentioned (however briefly). [[User:Deco|Deco]] 23:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you for these supportive comments. Other readers have mentioned the obligatory counter-rebuttals to the criticisms as representing a pro-transhumanist tone, if not exactly a bias. As the only principal author unsympathetic to transhumanism, I argued against this structure as the article was being written, but ultimately I did not persuade the other main authors. (A record of this debate can be found in the Archives of this Discussion page.) I think a version generated by anonymous editor 216.227.25.4 shortly after the article went to the Main Page, in which some of the positions described in the rebuttals were shifted to the "Theory and practice" section, represented a more neutral format.--[[User:StN|StN]] 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:''Ghost in the Shell?'' The same movie which says, "Your desire to remain who you are is what limits you"? [[User:Anville|Anville]] 03:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:As I've said many times before, it would be unfair and inaccurate not to present the counter-arguments of transhumanist thinkers when they devote so much of their work doing just that. If we remove the counter-arguments as Deco and StN suggest, you will have many readers who will legitimately complain that this article is biased against transhumanism. So I am strongly opposed to them being removed. On the contrary, I think some of them (such as Enough) should be expanded. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 14:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

::I've always felt that the problem with the article, if it has one, is the huge litany of arguments against transhumanism. More commonly in a Wikipedia article there would just be a brief "Criticisms" section. Even then, some indication would be given of answers to the criticisms. Given that we've reported a huge range of arguments against transhumanism, we have a responsibility to report what transhumanists say in response. Either we do it this way, or we have a much shorter article. The advantage of doing it this way is that it does give a comprehensive picture of the debate going on at the moment between transhumanists and various kinds of sympathisers, on the one hand, and various kinds of critics on the other. It gives the impression that transhumanism has endless problems, which is a bit unfair to the movement, but then again it really does have critics from many perspectives.

::This is about as neutral as it gets. Transhumanists or sympathisers can complain that most movements/philosoophies are described with much shorter criticisms sections and without this cumulative impression that they are under siege from all directions. Critics of transhumanism can wish some of the criticisms were allowed to stand as if they were uncontested. Neither "side" really "wins" here - views simply get reported, attributed and cited. I think that the article is in good enough shape that anyone who is interested can follow up the sources and make up their own minds. I wouldn't want to see the balance changed in either direction, and it's too late to cut it down to a shorter version after all the work that has gone in.

::Really, we have a great article here. It's just been featured as one of Wikipedia's best. I'm happy to see the work that's been done to pretty it up after some copyright problems were raised again last week. But my general attitude is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 01:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Well said as usual. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 02:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

==Version 0.5==

I've taken the liberty of nominating this article for assessment for the Version 0.5 list. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 13:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:What is Version 0.5 exactly? --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

::See [[Wikipedia:Version_0.5|here]]. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 01:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

:::So, if I understand correctly, the Transhumanism article could be on a Wikipedia CD or DVD if they ever decide to make one. I guess this is one more reason for us to find good images to add to the article. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 14:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

== Nice and bizarre ==

"[http://www.crank.net/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?http://www.bmezine.com/news/pubring/20030816.html Body Modification's Role in the Coming Human-Robot Apocalypse]". Going one toke over the line God did not intend Man to cross. I found this via [http://www.crank.net Crank Dot Net], quite an enjoyable little site. [[User:Anville|Anville]] 21:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:Anville, since this is the talk page for discussing changes to the Transhumanism article, did you think this article on body modification could be cited as a source or did you simply want to discuss the content of the article itself? If it is the latter, this isn't the right place. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 22:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you for this link, Anville. While the material there is not ready for prime time in the TH article, it provides food for thought concerning possible future tweaks.--[[User:StN|StN]] 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

::Having now read it, I agree. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 17:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Thank you; I appreciate your responses. (I'm sure the sum total of the irrelevant things I've said in improper venues pushes the limits of what [[surreal number|surreal number theory]] can enumerate.) I'd also like to express my esteem for the people who pushed this article to FA and, to the best of my knowledge, didn't explode with anger when the Main Page exposure brought along the inevitable vandalism. You people do good work. What's next? [[User:Anville|Anville]] 19:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Well, before moving to a new article such as [[Digitalism]], I think we still need to 1) summarize and mention Natasha Vita-More's book [[CREATE/RECREATE]] in the History section; 2) mention [[Robert A. Heinlein]]'s work in the Fiction and Art section; 3) mention [[Omega point (Tipler)]] in the Spirituality section; 4) expand the Enough counter-argument using Ron Bailey's Reason article and some other source; and 5) find appropropriate images for various sections of the Transhumanism article to make it look as esthetically stimulating as it used to be before it was a featured article. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 20:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

== Neutrality ==

The "Terminator Argument" is ''extremely'' biased in favor of transhumanism, listing only users of the argument who can then be debunked by their other agendas.

[[User:Kashami|Kashami]] 14:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:I've edited this section to reflect your criticism and removed the neutrality tag. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 14:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) A great source for the sentence on Kalle Lasn: Walker, Ian. (2001) [http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s409607.htm Cyborg Dreams: Beyond Human]. ABC Radio National --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 16:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC) {{unsigned|Loremaster}}

::I'm also concerned about the neutrality of the article. I'm not sure how noting that Bill Joy was influenced by Theodore Kaczynski addresses this. It seems to me to make it worse, putting a reasonable critic in the company of a crazy. Perhaps I misunderstand Loremaster's intention in doing this. Also, Transhumanism itself has an extremist, risk-taking side, which is not featured in the article. That is why, though I am philosophically very much out of tune with Natasha Vita-More, I have to agree with her that the tendency in the movement represented by Max More and Extropianism (which is prominent in discussion groups despite the dissolution of the EI) has been slighted. Finally, the point-counterpoint structure of the Criticisms section , where each criticism is met with a reasonable, precautionist-sounding WTA-inspired response, makes the whole thing sound very academic, with the transhumanists coming out as balanced and reasonable in all cases. A number of readers have commented on the pro-transhumanist tone of the way the criticisms are handled. But as the only non-TH sympathizer among the primary contributors, I have continually been out-voted when trying to change this. Given the criticism-response structure, then, it would be as legitimate, as a reflection of the spectrum of opinion in transhumanism, to deal with the Eugenics Wars argument, for example, by quoting the Nobelist James D. Watson to the effect that the problem with the German eugenics program was that in some cases they chose the wrong genotypes to eliminate. Or to deal with the human experimentation argument by countering with "no pain, no gain", which is essentially Gregory Stock's and Lee Silver's position. --[[User:StN|StN]] 16:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:::On the issue of Joy/Kaczynski, I was stating a fact, which is important since many critics (journalists, academics) have have pointed out the surprising coherence of Kaczynski's views expressed in his manifesto. As for the Criticism section, I find the majority of the arguments balanced and reasonable due to StN's great work so I don't see what the problem is. As I've said before, I think most transhumanist counter-arguments are not developed enough. StN's suggestions on how to expand them are actually good. That being said, I would like to point out that Kashami felt that only the Terminator argument lacked neutrality (before I edited it) not the rest of the Criticism section so it is misleading to put him in the caterogy of people who think this entire section is pro-transhumanist in tone when it is not. There have also been people who complained that the article was biased against transhumanism, a number which is likely to increase if the article is radically altered. I'll let Metamagician respond on the issue of whether or not there is a (dark) side of transhumanism that is being overlooked. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] 19:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)