Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

IMPORTANT: Friendly advice for new contributors

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to the Transhumanism-related articles, categories, templates, and talk page discussions. Therefore, all content hosted in Wikipedia cannot be:

1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a transhumanist blog or visit a transhumanist forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite transhumanist views.
2. Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics, especially those that advance or hinder the goals of the transhumanist movement, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries, especially for current affairs, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikinews, however, allows commentaries on its articles.
3. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or transhumanist projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
4. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting transhumanist causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

That being said, having invested a lot of time and energy in editing the Transhumanism article, the primary contributors (User:StN, User:Metamagician3000, User:Loremaster) have been guided by one overriding principle: All claims for and against transhumanism, or otherwise, be accurate, properly attributed, and well-referenced. We don't own this article but we want it to be the best possible resource for anyone (e.g. students, journalists, cultural critics) who is interested in the subject rather than an attempt to portray transhumanism in the best or worse possible light. Despite having conflicting views, we all cooperated in an effort to make the article well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough for Featured Article status. Therefore, please take the time to discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, in order to avoid an unnecessary dispute. Thank you. --Loremaster 01:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since many people have pointed out that the Controversy section (formely known as the Criticisms section) of the Transhumanism article is long enough, I suggest that new contributors refrain from adding content to this section unless it substantively (rather than superficially) contributes to the debate. --Loremaster 17:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Message from an earlier editor

I was one of the main contributors to this article during the period when it took on its present form, underwent peer review, and was promoted to a Featured Article. The others were Metamagician3000, an avowed advocate of transhumanism who was generally sympathetic to transhumanist objectives and Loremaster, who was a bit skeptical of the philosophy and movement, though not nearly to the extent that I am. Overall, Loremaster's position could be characterized as the most "neutral" of the three. Together we arrived at a tone and coverage of topics that satisfied most critics (who also made many contributions). There continued to be a substantial group of commentators who saw the existing article as unduly promotional of transhumanist ideas, but the existence of the Controversies section served to balance these objections. I have recently started following the discussions of the article after a hiatus of more than a year. It looks to me like advocates of transhumanism are trying to refashion the article so as to reduce and undermine the criticisms and more overtly promote the movement. Loremaster's attempts to defend it as a useful and indeed respected Wikipedia article are being portrayed as tendentious. I think this is entirely unfair. There are no real transhumanism skeptics currently contributing to the article. If the contributions of earlier critics are erased by the new group of editors, a collective effort of more than a year would be degraded and the article would probably lose its FA status once general readers became aware of the changes. The upside for transhumanists would be that Web searches for the term would turn up one less balanced discussion and one more piece of hype to add to the many existing ones from the WTA. StN (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's an interesting characterisation. Metamagician3000 (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are not and never have been an avowed advocate of transhumanism? Just because you are doesn't mean that you can't be relatively objective when you edit articles related to transhumanism. Your history of contributions to the Wikipedia article on transhumanism proves it. --Loremaster (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

External links / See also

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 --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 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. --Loremaster 21:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Regarding "See also" sections: I personally disagree with all three points listed above. Does anyone know if this is really a style guideline, or published "rule of thumb" of WP? I tried searching for "see also" on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style page and all I found was (guess what?) a "See also" section. People visiting an article are often going to be curious about what articles exist on related subjects, and aren't necessarily going to want to read the entirety of their current article looking for blue links. In short, I think this article should have a "See also" section. Comments?

KarlBunker 12:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to it. My recommendation regarding a "see also" section isn't an official Wikipedia guideline. As I said, its a rule of thumb for good articles which was recommended to us by two Wikipedia administrators. That being said, more often that not "see also" sections are used by people to put links to their pet articles which often have nothing to do with the subject of the article. --Loremaster 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not hearing any argument as to why it's a rule of thumb for good articles. I see it serving a purpose and I don't see how it does any harm. True, people might put junk in it, but in my experience that doesn't happen that much. (A "xxx in popular culture" section would be a whole 'nother story, or course.  :-)

KarlBunker 18:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"See also" are a list, lists are worse then text. Wiki is not paper, we should have room to discuss all related issues, and "See also", which rarely discuss the linked items, give little indication why they are relevant. --Loremaster 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Loremaster on this one. Metamagician3000 02:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The External links section is becoming quite long. Should we consider deleting some possibly innappropriate links according to Wikipedia:External links guidelines. Also, should we consider updating the History section by mentioning some of the para-transhumanist groups linked to in this section. --Loremaster 07:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Great article on a tricky subject

I love the way you guys organized the objections to Transhumanism. This is a very smart and balanced article. Good work. ---- CharlesGillingham 06:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Loremaster 03:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed splitting of Transhumanism #Controversy section into a new article (e.g. Controversy regarding transhumanism)

I propose that this section be split into a new article. As in my opinion, its length is out of proportion to the rest of the article. Nk.sheridan   Talk 00:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal to split the Transhumanism#Controversy section into a new article. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Comment - The early consensus regarding my proposal for splitting appears to be against. I am closing my proposal as a result of arguments made by Loremaster and StN. Expansion of other sections may be able to deal with the proportionality issue. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 00:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey - Feel free to state your position on my splitting proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia:Splitting (although this is neither a guideline nor a policy.) Thanks, Nk.sheridan   Talk 00:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Will give opportunity for both sections to be expanded without as much protest from the other side. I do agree it is odd for a controversy section to take up half of an article. Zazaban (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak Oppose. In light of below, I'm not so sure. Zazaban (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. As the archived debates of 2006 can confirm, the main contributors of the Transhumanism article decided against splitting the Transhumanism #Controversy section into a new article to avoid jeopardizing the consensus that was needed at the time to nominate Transhumanism as a featured article candidate. The main objection articulated by User:StN was that without the Controversy section the Transhumanism article could and probably would (unintentionally or intentionally) become a "puff piece" for transhumanism or, at the very least, could legitimately be interpreted as such. (This is in fact quite likely in light of the number of people who feel that the Transhumanism article currently reads like a promotion tool of the WTA...) Therefore, the solution is simple: Expand the rest of the article so that the length of the Controversy section doesn't seem out of proportion. This is a perfectly reasonable suggestion since User:Amara has complained that the rest of the article needs to be expanded regardless of the length of the Controversy section. By the way, it seems that many transhumanist readers do not realize that the Controversy section is written in such that it always give transhumanists the last word and a chance to further explain what transhumanism is and isn't. Let that sink in for a moment... ;) --Loremaster (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. As one of the three original main writers of this article, and the one most critical of Transhumanism, I fought to cover all the objections to Transhumanism in the scholarly literature. Only when the broader community was convinced that balance has been achieved did the article pass all the hurdles on the way to becoming a Featured Article, a status it was finally awarded, in the category of Philosophy. To my mind, and that of many critics, Transhumanism is not a philosophical movement, but a hodge-podge of poorly founded ideas and desires. With the Controversy section the article legitmately makes the cut as a description of an important philosophical discourse of the present period in "Western" culture. Separating off the Controversy section would seem to promote Transhumanism to a philosophical movement in its own right. If that happened I would be among the first to propose demotion of the article from FA status.StN (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Forgive my hubris, but I think these "controversies" are creating two disservices to readers, firstly taking away from the message of the page, being simply, "What is Transhumanism?" and furthermore do not necessarily have the philosophical weight that the tone and sheer verbosity of that section might imply. Most of these arguments, while they can be expanded on like a college essay (as has been done), boil down nicely into only three truly distinct arguments. Elaborating ad nauseum about the intricacies of every Armageddon scenario can certainly be done with less than half the page, I should hope we can agree. Yes? I will not change anything but propose we consider aggregating the slew of them to Infeasibility, Moral (combining the Hubris, Contempt, Trivialization, Threats and Dehumanization sections) and Consequential (combining the Genetic, Specter and Existential sections). Certainly there is always room to go into more detail, on any subject, but the actual Transhumanism page is too cluttered with what it it should not be rather than what it does propose. Tomekeeper (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Transhuman

For many years, there are have been minor disputes about the etymology of the word “transhuman”. The Transhumanist FAQ of the World Transhumanist Association has always argued it goes back to FM-2030 (1966). However, some people dispute this by arguing that it actually goes back to Julian Huxley (1957) or even Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1949). However, although Huxley and de Chardin used terms like “transhumanism”, “transhumanity” and “transhumanizing”, we need to confirm that they excplicitly used the word “transhuman”. So my question is: Does coining and defining the words “transhumanism”, “transhumanity” and “transhumanizing” automatically mean that one has coined and defined the word “transhuman” even when one have never explicitly used that word? --Loremaster (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Kind of an in-depth question, but I'd have to go with "not automatically, but possibly". In this case... not necessarily? I think you sum it up there: we need to confirm that they excplicitly used the word “transhuman”. Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Not an "ideology"

Transhumanism is not an "ideology." I would recommend that people read Slavov Zizec's Sublime Object of Ideology to get a sense of what an ideology is. An ideology involves the idea that beliefs, decisions, etcetera are arrived at automatically, in between consciously and unconsciously. You are familiar with partisan ideologues like you see on a political pundit program (like talk radio or crossfire, etc.). They spout their opinions largely without any deep thought about it. That's ideology. Nobody is an ideological transhumanist. At least someone is going to have to provide an instance of someone expressing a belief in transhumanism in an ideological way before this category makes any sense. I had proposed to delete the category, but the hoi polloi didn't understand why it's not a good idea.Greg Bard (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Having discussed transhumanism with many transhumanists on this talk page and in online forums, I can testify that there are many transhumanists who are ideologues. However, my personal opinion is irrelevant. What matters is that not only have a number of prominent transhumanists described transhumanism as an ideology in the good sense of the word (read James Hughes's 2002 essay The Politics of Transhumanism) but many critics of transhumanism (including a university professor who teaches the philosophy of technology I spoke to) have described transhumanism as an ideology in the bad sense of the word or, worse, as a pseudoreligion (read Dale Carrico's Condensed Critique of Transhumanism).

Therefore, I am opposed to your suggested deletion of the Ideologies category from this article.

--Loremaster (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if that is the case, then there is even a stronger case to delete the ideology category altogether. If transhumanism is an ideology, then it is really just a menaingless distinction. How does this make transhumanism distinct from any other "theories" out there? Can they not all be held ideologically in the same sense as say, fascism or socialism? It's ridiculous. Greg Bard (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to delete the Category:Ideologies page, you need to start a discussion on the Category talk:Ideologies page.

The distinctiveness of transhumanism doesn't hinge on whether or not is an ideology. However, regardless of what Zizec argues in his book, the common definition of an “ideology” is “a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and actions” and “a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things” whose purpose is to “offer either change in society, or adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process”, transhumanism, with its distinct worldview, goals, expectations and actions, fit this definition.

--Loremaster (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Greg Bard is right. We can´t add this category without reliable source. Also, James Hughes did not described transhumanism as an ideology. On the contrary, he wrote:

the WTA is not committed to a particular political ideology

World Transhumanist Association is not committed to a particular political ideology.

And amormundi.blogspot.com is just blog. --Ewigekrieg (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Gregbard is wrong.

There is obviously a difference between an ideology and a political ideology. The World Transhumanist Association being an organization that is not commited to particular political ideology (such as libertarianism or socialism) doesn't change the fact that transhumanism itself is an ideology (a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and actions and/or a worldview) and James Hughes repeatedly describing transhumanism as an ideology in his essay is more than enough to support this fact:

With the emergence of cyberculture, the technoutopian meme-plex has found a natural medium, and has been furiously mutating and crossbreeding with political ideologies. One of its recent manifestations has adopted the label “transhumanism,” and within this sparsely populated but broad ideological tent many proto-ideological hybrids are stirring.

More and the other extropians made clear that extropianism was but one of the possible forms of transhumanist ideology

transhumanism involves a self-conscious ideological leaning, not merely having been an early adopter of posthuman tech.

For the transhumanists to emerge as a broad ideological movement

Furthermore, all the currents with transhumanism are obviously political ideologies so the Ideologies cateory covers them as well. Regardless, this is a silly dispute that resurfaces once a year because of some pro-transhumanist editor who hates the idea of the transhumanist ideology being described as an “ideology”. This non-sense has to stop. --Loremaster (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This quotations doesn´t support your point of view:

"ideological tent" <> ideology

"extropians made clear..." <> "transhumanism is ideology"

"transhumanism involves a self-conscious ideological leaning" <> "transhumanism is ideology"

“Transhumanism” in Sterling’s Shaper-Mechanist politics is...

Also, this quotation is wrong:

For the transhumanists to emerge as a broad ideological movement

Right quotation ("transhumanism can be an ideology - in Future"):

For the transhumanists to emerge as a broad ideological movement, capable of inspiring activists and organizing a resistance to neo-Luddism, it must embrace...

No one says, what transhumanism can not be ideological. But we have no reliable source, which actually says what transhumanism is ideology.

Offtopic: should we add this category to the article "Environmentalism"? Is environmentalism "a broad philosophy and social movement" or ideology? --Ewigekrieg (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my entire argument and I disagree with yours. That being said, according to both transhumanists and critics of transhumanism, transhumanism is a “school of thought”, a “philosophy”, a “movement”, a “subculture”, and an “ideology”. The same can be and is said about environmentalism and feminism. --Loremaster (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Lore, I have read and carefully considered these quotes which support your view. Unfortunately, what it amounts to, is sloppy use of language by some otherwise very smart people. One can also surely find quotes supporting the idea that tramshumanism is an "idea" or a "concept" or "school of thought" or "view" or etcetera. Those of us who make an effort to study these very things academically invariably run into the imprecise popular usage of terms. Everybody thinks they are an expert in this regard, however there are real accepted and precise definitions formulated by analytic philosophers whose entire reason d'etre is to clarify things. Transhumanism is not more precisely a "concept," or a "view" or an "idea." It is most precisely a theory. A theory I agree with btw. I think in your last paragraph you are presuming that I am motivated by a desire to "rescue" transhumanism from being labeled as an ideology. That isn't it at all. I am motivated by my intellectual and full understanding of what an ideology is. There are no transhumanists on Earth who are ideological about it...at all... not one. They are misusing the term, and that is unfortunate. Perhaps there are people out there who are transhumanists who are monists, rather than dualists, and are ideological about that, but there are NO transhumanists who are ideologically transhumanist. My apologies, but that really is the proper way to analyze it. Greg Bard (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, having discussed transhumanism with many transhumanists on this talk page and in online forums, I can testify that there are many transhumanists who are ideologues. However, my personal opinion is irrelevant. What matters is that not only have a number of prominent transhumanists described transhumanism as an ideology (analytical philosopher Nick Bostrom is quoted by one of his colleagues on a tranhumanist mailing list as describing it as a “primitive ideology”) but many critics of transhumanism (including a university professor who teaches the philosophy of technology I spoke to) have described transhumanism as an ideology and laugh at the notion that it is a serious “theory”. Regardless, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a notable writer, not whether editors think it is true. In other words, your personal opinion is also irrelevant. --Loremaster (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Having a strong opinion is not the same thing as being ideological. I'm sure your friends are experts in transhumanism, but not ideology. If we can put aside the Wikipedia policy about "verifiability, not truth" for a moment...and actually figure out what the truth is. My claim to you is that I have read and understood the supporting information you have duly provided; and my analysis is that it amounts to casual use of terms. The Zizec reference should suffice as a reliable source to support my claim of what an ideology is. Transhumanism is not an ideology in the strict sense, and that should be the standard if we are going to put it in that category. I'm sorry, but quite literally you are being ideological about the claim that transhumanism is an ideology --why?! It's not something to be proud of. Greg Bard (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about simply having “strong opinions” nor am I talking about my “friends”. Regardless, we cannot put Wikipedia's core policies aside because they are all that matter. That being said, Zizec doesn't have a monopoly on the definition of the word “ideology” even if he is an expert while transhumanism does fit the common definition of an ideology found in dictionaries and encyclopedias. As I said before, my opinion that transhumanism is, among other things, an ideology is not the issue! The fact that both transhumanists and their critics have described it as an ideology (even if was done casually, in your opinion alone) is more than sufficient to have the Ideologies category added to this article. Furthermore, all the currents with transhumanism are obviously political ideologies so the Ideologies cateory covers them as well. Ultimately, you are the one who is obsessed with removing this category while I'm just trying to preserve the article as it is. Get a life already. --Loremaster (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

From Transhumanism and Contemporary Art (a website was created for Rhe 330C, Rhetorics of Cyberculture, at the University of Texas at Austin):

Many other proponents of the ideology surfaced, but the first group of contemporary transhumanists began meeting at UCLA in the early 1980's.

Formerly known as futurists, this group of people would go on to formulate the contemporary transhumanistic ideology that exists today.

Further detail regarding proponents and critics of the Transhumanism ideology can be found in the sublinks listed below.

More to come if necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find plenty of experts, even academians, using the term "very unique" however that does not justify its erroneous use in WP. Obsessed? I'm not even passionate about it. I just find the whole misunderstanding unfortunate. Good luck. Greg Bard (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This whole misunderstanding is unfortunate because you fail to understand that the only thing that justifies the inclusion of material in Wikipedia is finding scholars and/or journalists whose writings support such inclusion regardless of whether or not it is erroneous according to your opinion or that of a thinker you like. If you can't understand and accept this fact, you have no business editing Wikipedia. --Loremaster (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

On no, I understand it only too well. I've been editing for about as long as you. I don't understand where the attitude is coming from. You see, I find that actually reasoning with someone as if they are a human and an equal is a very respectful and wonderful thing. If you are going to just take all the toys and go home, and otherwise behave like a Wikipedia policy robot, then well, I GUESS YOU WIN. What a winner you are. However, that still doesn't change the fact that anyone using the phrase "very unique" is an idiot. By all means proceed "whether or not it is erroneous" if the policy supports that. I am pretty sure I only need one book about grammar to support the deletion of the phrase "very unique" from the whole of WP, usage by academicians notwithstanding. Greg Bard (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You lost any pretense of wanting a respectful conversation when you wrote “I'm sorry, but quite literally you are being ideological about the claim that transhumanism is an ideology --why?! It's not something to be proud of.” That being said, I'm far from being a Wikipedia policy robot in light of the number of times I've tried to wiggle around some guidelines but even I consider that there are some core policies that simply cannot be ignored otherwise Wikipedia will degenerate into a mess. So I don't consider that I've won anything but it is becoming clear to everyone that you are a sore loser. Moving on. --Loremaster (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Has no one considered consulting the dictionary? According to Merriam-Webster: ide·ol·o·gy

noun \ˌī-dē-ˈä-lə-jē, ˌi-\

1 : visionary theorizing 2 a: a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture

 b: a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture

StN (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have. However, according to Gregbard, Slavov Zizec's Sublime Object of Ideology is the ultimate authority that defines what is and isn't an ideology... --Loremaster (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

irrelevant photo?

I don't feel strongly about this, but isn't the photo with the guy on the motorbike a bit irrelevant (yes it does link- I guess- in an indirect way to the article, but requires the imagination more than it normally should).Wawawemn (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This image has been there since June 2, 2006, (when Transhumanism became a featured article) and has had consensus ever since. --Loremaster (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL, keeping something for a long time is a funny reason to keep something. But do as you like.Wawawemn (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologise, I was too fast to talk. After reading the article more carefully, I see that the notion implied by the image is actually an important aspect of the transhumanism philosophy. Wawawemn (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Definition dispute

I have reverted User:Ewigekrieg's recent edits to the lead section of the article because 1) the current definition of transhumanism found in this section is based on the one provided in the Transhumanist FAQ, which was the collaborative work of several transhumanist thinkers, and 2) an universally acceptable and relatively objective definition of transhumanism should be not be solely based on the opinion of one person, even or especially if he is the first self-described transhumanist thinker since he lacks a critical distance from the subject. That being said, the issue of whether transhumanism is a “philosophy” or an “ideology” has already been debated in a section above. --Loremaster (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Why "H+"?

I'm a bit confused as to why the term "transhumanism" is abbreviated as "H+" or "h+". Shouldn't it be TH, or XH (the X being a common abbreviation of the prefix trans-)? misternuvistor (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In a March 2000 list, transhumanist intellectual Anders Sandberg reports the following statement made by fellow transhumanist Mark A. Plus:

>H: Transhuman, transhumanism (Greater-than-human; the use of '>' as a prefix has become widespread on the transhuman mailing list in constructions such as ">Art", ">Tech" and ">Sex" where it denotes trans- or posthuman activities.)

However, ever since the World Transhumanist Association changed its name to "Humanity+" in 2008 as part of rebranding effort in order to project a more humane image, and their publishing of h+ Magazine, transhumanism has been abbreviated as "H+" or "h+". --Loremaster (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Arts and culture

I plan to expand this section of the article. As a first step, I wont to divide section to subsections. It can help to improve readability and outline directions of development of the section. Any suggestions? - Ewigekrieg (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I would oppose the expansion of this section with content that is not sourced. On the contrary, I think the section should be downsized because there is too much content in there already that is not sourced. We cannot decide to describe some work of art as transhumanist based solely on our personal opinion. We need to find reliable sources that describe a work of art as transhumanist before including it in this section. --Loremaster (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, we should fill the section with sourced content. So, any suggestions about subsections? - Ewigekrieg (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think subsections are necessary since this section should be a concise overview of a subject explored in greater detail in Transhumanism in fiction and Transhumanist art articles (which also suffer from the same problem of having too much content that is not sourced). Perhaps you should focus on them instead. --Loremaster (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, its somewhat another subjects. "Arts and culture" is broader. - Ewigekrieg (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it depends what you want to add in there. However, I support your suggestion in the section below. --Loremaster (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of the novels mentioned should be deleted

Michel Houellebecq is not a cyberpunk writer, as the second paragraph gives the impression that he is. (I doubt that Margaret Atwood belongs here too, without having read her.) I'm sure a case can be made for Houellebecq's having influenced transhumanism in some way or other, but it is far from obvious -- so either this case should be made, or the claim deleted. Thomas Tvileren (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The section you are referring lists many works that are considered part of the cyberpunk genre or its postcyberpunk offshoot. However, 1) it doesn't specifically say that Michel Houellebecq's and Margaret Atwood's books part of this genre; and 2) the list is of books that (knowingly or unknowingly) explored transhumanist themes so one is arguing that these works influenced transhumanist thought. That being said, I've made a minor edit to the article to make the first point slightly more clear. --Loremaster (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Transhumanist non-fiction books

We have a lot of significant non-fiction books about transhumanism. For example:

• The Age of Intelligent Machines
• The Age of Spiritual Machines
• Citizen Cyborg
• Ending Aging
• Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever
• Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition: Science Slightly over the Edge
• Our Posthuman Future
• Radical Evolution
• The Singularity Is Near

Popular non-fiction books is a big part of the transhumanist culture and philosophy. I think the article should have some content related to them. Ideas? - Ewigekrieg (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that's a good suggestion! Let me think about it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

So, any ideas?) --Ewigekrieg (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Fringe Theories Noticeboard

Hello. This article and all those related to Transhumanism are the subject of a current discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard. People have concerns about "in-universe" writing, and about whether the articles reflect mainstream scholarship. Also, in looking at the article, I find that the technical quality of referencing is not up to the standard currently expected in FA. I think there may be original synthesis, e.g. the bracketed descriptions of the objections to Transhumanism in the section headings do not seem to be sourced. And there is a lot of reliance on online sources of dubious reliability, although their statements are usually discussed critically.

Please be assured that this is not a reflection on any editor's behaviour, but an offer to get more attention to the article and help with its improvement. The topic is obviously notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Although there is always room for improving the quality of referencing, I strongly disagree with your vague criticisms. --Loremaster (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to look at the FTN discussion? I didn't initiate it but thought it ought to be brought over here. What I say above shows you my impressions on looking through the article, an initial setting out of the stall. I agree that it would be good to move from the general to the specific. What I mean about the technical quality of the referencing is that we do not always have author, title and publisher. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No I haven't had a chance to look at the FTN discussion because I'm too busy. --Loremaster (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. --Loremaster (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Tipler

Tipler was not a transhumanist. If you wanted to reinsert the passage you must show why it is not offtopic. Frank Tiplers formulation is not a transhumanist one; a link is not shown in any reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Tipler's ideas are associated with transhumanism in numerous sources and I cited one. Your action in failing to discuss your proposed change before making it and then repeating it before consensus is established is contrary to WP:EDITWAR, WP:BRD and the FAQ above. Please revert so that editors may see the disputed text while we establish consensus. Warden (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There's lots of work to do on this article, can we please focus on the work and not on editors unless someone's behaviour gets really out of order. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• User:IRWolfie- is already edit-warring despite the warning posted clearly on this talk page. His behaviour is therefore really out of order. Warden (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the disputed text easily enough using the page history. It is supported by a book of Tipler's, with no page number, and by another reference which seems to say only that his work "contributed". As did Freeman Dyson's, which seems completely different. Writers can see connections between ideas, but we can't make those connections in Wikipedia's voice unless we have a firm source making the link. I don't think this is firm enough, but if you want to find more sources, please suggest them. I noted that Bostrom, who seems to be the main adherent of Transhumanism, was completely dismissive of Tipler's construct. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Bostrom is not completely dismissive of Tipler's ideas. He explains that transhumanists have varying views of how a singularity may or may not happen and sees the views of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Tipler as part of this variety. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin seems even more significant than Tipler in this matter, being also referred to repeatedly in sources such as Teilhard de Chardin and transhumanism in which Tipler is clearly identified as a transhumanist: "...transhumanists such as Tipler, Moravec, and Kurzweil". Here are some more sources:

1. "One example of such transhumanist theological teleology or “cosmotheism” is Frank Tipler's..."
2. "Marvin Minsky ... articulated many of the themes of the transhumanist vision and he was joined by other famous scientific visionaries and technoutopians such as Ray Kurzweil, Eric K. Drexler, Frank P. Tipler, and Hans Moravec."
3. "I (Tipler) have just come back from a conference on Christianity, and when I pointed out the connection between the gnostic heresy and their rejection of transhumanism, the Christians at the conference began --- for the first time, I think --- to take transhumanism (and hence the Omega Point) seriously."

This latter from Tipler himself shows that he considers his Omega point theory to be part of transhumanism. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't have really good sources to say "Tipler is a transhumanist", but perhaps we have sources to say "Transhumanist writers see their ideas as rooted in the writing of Teilhard de Chardin and Frank Tipler"? Just a suggestion. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• The disputed text did not say "Tipler is a transhumanist" and so the use of quotation marks to suggest that it did is false and misleading — a straw man. What the article actually said was "Many believe in the compatibility of human minds with computer hardware ... One extreme formulation of this idea may be found in Frank Tipler's proposal of the Omega Point. ...Tipler's thought was inspired by the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin ...". So, what the article is saying is that many transhumanists believe in uploading and that ideas of this sort are found in the writings of Tipler and de Chardin. This presentation of the development of transhumanist ideas and current thinking seems quite reasonable because many sources about transhumanism describe the writings of Tipler and de Chardin in a similar way.

So, this dispute seems to be be based upon a misunderstanding of what the article actually said. I shall restore the status quo ante so that the text can be read again, adding a citation to Teilhard de Chardin and transhumanism to further verify the connection. If there are further objections, please discuss them to establish consensus before making edits. This is a featured article which has been previously reviewed by many editors and mention of Tipler and de Chardin has been in the article for over 5 years with fairly stable text over that time.

Warden (talk)

I was not familiar with any of this before but shall certainly scrutinise the restored text. I appreciate that the article has in general been stable for a long time, but a request has been made on FTN to see if our fringe policies are complied with. That has brought some uninvolved editors over, and I hope you will welcome that attention. Note that many of the urls have an accessed date of 2006. IRWolfie, can you explain why you are so certain that Tipler is not relevant here? thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the relevant half of the section:

Secular transhumanists are strong physicalists and naturalists who do not believe in a transcendent human soul. Transhumanist personhood theory (i.e. personism) also argues against the unique identification of moral actors and subjects with biological humans, judging as speciesist the exclusion of non-human and part-human animals, and sophisticated machines, from ethical consideration. Many believe in the compatibility of human minds with computer hardware, with the theoretical implication that human consciousness may someday be transferred to alternative media, a speculative technique commonly known as "mind uploading". One extreme formulation of this idea may be found in Frank Tipler's proposal of the Omega Point. ...

I've made many edits on the tipler fringe article and I've never seen a direct link to transhumanism. Tipler is a christian (not secular), also there is no source that says tipler was a transhumanist which this paragraph appears to indicate. I would also argue that Tiplers views are (extremely) fringe and should not be given due weight in other articles unless a clear linkage is shown. Edit: On looking at the above sources by warden I would be happy with the section if the changes are made that 1. he is not secular and 2. he is not a transhumanist unless this can be verified with a source (BLP issue). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The mainstream opinion of Frank Tiplers ideas should also be included. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Mary Midgley's book, already cited, would be a good source for that. I can see pages in Google Books preview, but as annoyingly usual, not all the pages I need. I will get it from the library and see if it can be used more. With page numbers. By the way, Omega Point is from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and in his thought it is a religious concept as well as or instead of a pseudoscientific one. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Tipler took his inspirations from Pierre Tielhard; I think Tipler somehow bases himself being a christian on it in some bizarre fashion. His fringe work on this appears also to be religion based from what I have seen. (It's pseudoscientific in both cases) IRWolfie- (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Government interest in NBIC technologies

A change to the following sentence was reverted.

While international discussion of the converging technologies and NBIC concepts includes strong criticism of their transhumanist orientation and alleged science fictional character,[72][73][74] research on brain and body alteration technologies has accelerated under the sponsorship of the US Department of Defense, which is interested in the battlefield advantages they would provide to the "supersoldiers" of the United States and its allies.[75]

Anyone who edits controversial articles can see that this needs to be improved. Three references half way through a sentence shows that there is a juxtaposition of two ideas here. And juxaposition makes an implication. Let's split the sentence and see if that helps.

International discussion of the converging technologies and NBIC concepts includes strong criticism of their transhumanist orientation and alleged science fictional character.[72][73][74]

.

At the same time, research on brain and body alteration technologies has accelerated under the sponsorship of the US Department of Defense, which is interested in the battlefield advantages they would provide to the "supersoldiers" of the United States and its allies.[75]

Definitely better.

Now let's see what each half is doing. The first sentence is backed by two sources of impeccable provenance, quite different in nature, one from 2004 and one from 2006. Third source is a deadlink to a pdf, in French, where we only have author and title. In this case we need to look through the RS/RAE and EU reports and see whether this one sentence adequately summarises two important reports. We need to see whether we have made it clear what each one says about transhumanism in particular.

The second half is backed by a book by an academic. A controversial topic and it should be attributed. If it is on topic. If it doesn't specifically discuss Transhumanism, then it should be used in the article on NBIC, not here. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's not clear what point is being made here. If it's just that we should break a long sentence in two then that's fine. Anyway, here's another source which discusses the association of military R&D, NBIC and transhumanism: The Friends of NBIC-Convergence. This talks of a strategic alliance between the military and transhumanism. Warden (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the current sentence introduces a synthesis and can be improved. I am not familiar with any of this area, except for general philosophy of science. I am trying to suggest improvements by identifying relevant reliable sources and discussing how they can be used. Have you seen the thread on FTN about this series of articles? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The book you link to above is certainly reliable and relevant, and much more up to date than most of the sources in the article. If you would like to use it to improve coverage of this sub-topic, I don't think anyone could have a problem with that. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Fringe Criticisms

Related notions were also voiced by self-described neo-luddite Kalle Lasn, a culture jammer who co-authored a 2001 spoof of Donna Haraway's 1985 Cyborg Manifesto as a critique of the techno-utopianism he interpreted it as promoting.[125] Lasn argues that high technology development should be completely relinquished since it inevitably serves corporate interests with devastating consequences on society and the environment.

The views of a neo-luddite appear to be fringe and have no due weight for the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that this text should be cut. Lasn seems to be a critic of modern society and is prominent in the Occupy protests but he doesn't seem to make any specific criticisms of transhumanism or transhumanist ideas and I find no sources which associate the two. Warden (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and have removed it. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I strongly oppose and will revert. Lasn has made specific criticisms of transhumanism. His 2001 spoof of Donna Haraway's 1985 Cyborg Manifesto is in fact an indirect criticism of transhumanism (listen to this Lasn interview by transhumanist advocate James Hughes). Please stop chipping away at this article without taking the time to learn more about this subject and before getting the input of the people actually wrote this article after spending months researching and debating content before it was included in the article. --Loremaster (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not your article, we do not need to consult you personally. You have not addressed the fringe nature of the neo-luddite criticism. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about all the people who contributed to this article and who keep watch over it. And, as one of the headers states, “The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.”

That being said, I disagree with your opinion that Lasn's criticism is fringe since you have not even explained why you think it is “fringe”. --Loremaster (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The connection to Neo-Luddism made the fringe nature pretty obvious to me. Most people don't have an general problem with technology. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not a basis to determine whether or not a criticism is worthy to be mentioned in an article. Without describing themselves as “neo-luddites”, several notable, respected thinkers and militants have written criticisms of technology ranging from the negative social effects of computers to the catastrophic potential of nuclear technology. Only a clueless technoutopian would be blissfully ignorant of the vast literature on this subject... So the only thing that matters is 1) whether or not the author is notable, and 2) whether or not his opinion is relevant to the subject of the article. I would say yes on both counts. By the way, in light of the fact that transhumanists often criticize (mostly unfairly) their opponents as being “neo-luddites” or “bio-luddites”, it makes perfect sense to report the opinion of a critic who actually describes himself as such. --Loremaster (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

We can't use a "culture jammer" to critique the work of an influential social scientist. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster, you have not provided any reasoning for why you have re-inserted this material. i.e the concensus from the other editors is clearly against this text being in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that it is nothing more than your opinion (that we can't use a "culture jammer" to critique the work of an influential social scientist), Lasn is more than just a "culture jammer". He is a notable social activist and the opinion of social activists are note-wrothy. I have and will continue to restore the mention of Lasn in the article. Please wait until this dispute is resolved for deleting this content again. By the way, although others editors in this debate are clearly against this text being in the article, they haven't come back to debate this issue so that this dispute can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties involved. --Loremaster (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not "nothing more than my opinion". Haraway's book was very widely reviewed in academia, and continues to be cited both positively and negatively. If you want a critique of Haraway there are umpteen places to find one. I can't see why Lasn's critique is a notable one. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Beyond the fact that Lasn is himself notable, you seem to have missed two points: 1) Lasn's critique of Haraway's book was included partly as a desrcription of who he is and what he has done, and 2) Lasn's critique was notable and relevant because many people actually believed it was an actual transhumanist manifesto and embraced it rather than realizing that it was a spoof meant to stimulate critical thinking. In other words, the goal wasn't to find and include the best critique of Haraway's book. It was simply a side-note which pointed out how some transhumanists and/or anti-transhumanists reacted to it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If what you say about the spoof being percieved as an actual transhumanist manifesto can be reliably sourced then have a separate paragraph discussing that if it is due. It is irrelevant to the current issue though. His criticism still have no due weight as they are fringe views. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it's relevancy is that we are mentioning the spoof partly as a description of who Lasn is and what he has done in relation to transhumanism. There is no need for a separate paragraph to discuss it. --Loremaster (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any spoof mentioned in conjunction with this. Or rather, I don't see it being taken up as a spoof, also the fringe criticism itself is undue and so not appropriate. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what it is that you don't see since I've explained that the mention of the spoof mostly functions as a description of who Lasn is and what he has done. That being said, there are rules against given undue weight to fringe views bu there are no rules against “fringe criticism” if they are relevant (if an individual or group criticize people as “neo-luddites” it is more than relevant to quote a notable advocate of neo-luddism) The issue is whether or not the person expressing a “fringe criticism” is notable and whether or not this “fringe criticism” is being undue weight. A single concise sentence in a massive Criticism section is not undue weight nor is it inapppropriate. --Loremaster (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The article consists almost completely of fringe and undue criticisms. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Specifically in response to the claim that if someone has made statements in a “Neo-Luddite" they are not acceptable to be used is more or less crazy talk. These are people, statements and points of view that are frequently covered in balanced courses on the subject. Whether or not all of the persons viewpoints are common are completely irrelevant.

Frankly, this "fringe" issue is the viewpoint of a few editors that have suddenly swooped into this article. Posting on another wiki and directing people to come over here and repeat "fringe! fringe!" doesn't mean that you have any merit, and frankly after the umpteenth time I read something like this I stop taking it seriously.

I've personally had about enough of this "Fringe" raiding party. You've rallied editors with little apparent knowledge of the subject and next to zero knowledge of the article and swarmed the talk with nonconstructive argument and personal attacks. Please learn how to intelligently make a point, explain it, and provide some form of evidence to support your opinion. Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A self-styled neo-luddite is a fringe view no matter which way you like to spin it. He does not appear in reliable secondary sources, his views are quoted directly from a source he created. I have made no personal attacks, do not accuse me of personal attacks whilst also making a personal attack against me. Thanks. If it is covered in secondary sources why is the article not using the secondary sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like you to address what a "fringe view" actually is by your (you personally, the group here, whatever) standards, why this is such an issue, and what your recommendations are. At the moment you seem to be using "fringe" as a synonym for "minority", ie "minority viewpoint". It would be extremely helpful if you could explain yourself in a way that does not use the word "fringe", basically. I don't mean to come across as rude here, but over the years in this article I've had to deal with people coming down off of a Sci-Fi channel buzz, malicious editors who don't seem to be all there, and also a fair number of the people who are actually major reference sources for this article (yeah, that was reeeeaaally fun). The article has passed numerous checks over the years, has received awards, and as has been previously stated anyone that feels significant change needs to be made is going to have to put forth a well thought out, clear and detailed opinion; not a buzzword. Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is what you are looking for. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Popping out.

Re Itsmejudith - yes, I've seen and read that. It's part of the reason why I'm so confused by the swarm of comments here. Fringe is being used to justify complaints about (to use the most recent example) the referenced author having neo-luddite views attributed to him, indicating that this is not a valid source and/or viewpoint to be showing here (I don't honestly know, no one has bothered to explain themselves thus far, hence why I'm getting specific with my questions).

Fringe states:

A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.

For starters, is the example section "fringe" because of the views in relation to transhumanism, or because of the neo-luddite angle? I could perhaps see issue with the neo-luddite part, but the fact remains that the view and statement are not out of proportion for mention in this context. You really might as well find fault with it due to the source being Hari Krishna, colorblind or any other multitude of minorities; the statements themselves are not fringe solely because the individual is considered uncommon. "Most people don't have an general problem with technology" is a personal opinion with no basis in fact (and no basis in talking to the average senior citizen, either) and has nothing to do with including statements in an article.

In fact, the subjects covered in Fringe include such as obvious pseudoscience, generally considered pseudoscience, questionable science, alternative theoretical formulations as the major issue; NONE of which have anything to do with the matter at hand. This is not using a creationist counterargument, this is using material from a person that is not fond of technology.

So again, please feel free to explain how you are interpreting WP:FRINGE into this matter, because so far I'm just not seeing how you've made any kind of convincing argument. Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Human.v2.0. --Loremaster (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify; a neo-luddite has a fringe views on a technology related subject. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That is, quite frankly, your own opinion. If we were looking for a neo-luddite's opnion on Windows 7 you would be correct, but when it is used as part of a collection of views on dangers of technology it is a pretty rational inclusion.

What you are doing is completely warping the will and intent of WP:Fringe. I would say that you are warping the words, but nowhere in WP:Fringe does it mention anything like what you are attempting.

If you are serious in your view, then you still have no explained how "undue weight" is being given here, which is a primary part of WP:Fringe. Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Human.v2.0 is right. IRWolfie's stubborn narrow-mindedness on this single issue is baffling to me... --Loremaster (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to speak for IRWolfie, but my principal criticism of the whole article is that there is far too much reliance on poor or questionable sources. Is Lasn's critique of transhumanism particularly notable or important? We have nothing to indicate that it is. If you are sure it is then you can find independent sources that say so. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not he holds "fringe" views, Lasn is a notable person, which makes his opinion note-worthy if it substantive and relevant to the subject. That being said, there aren't millions of people who have taken the time to write a direct criticism of transhumanism, which make all criticisms of transhumanism from notable people we can find useful and important. Ultimately, the notion that we are giving Lasn's views undue weight is obviously absurd. --Loremaster (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No reason to think that his view on this particular issue is notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The rational should be based on significant coverage in reliable sources as per WP:DUE. Show me the reliable sources that back the statment Related notions were also voiced by self-described neo-luddite Kalle Lasn, a culture jammer who co-authored a 2001 spoof of Donna Haraway's 1985 Cyborg Manifesto as a critique of the techno-utopianism he interpreted it as promoting. Lasn argues that high technology development should be completely relinquished since it inevitably serves corporate interests with devastating consequences on society and the environment. Do not respond with more arguments; respond with reliable sources that match WP:SOURCES. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lasn was interviewed by Radio National to discuss his Cyborg Manifesto spoof and his criticism of posthumanism. You can read the transcript: Cyborg Dreams: Beyond Human. --Loremaster (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

So, I'm assuming that you don't consider ABC to be a reliable news source? I've fixed the dead link with a transcript; it wasn't entirely hard to do. Is that source not reputable enough for you? The 2nd reference, I don't see any problem at all. Are you having a hard time finding the information you quoted mentioned in either of those two sources?

As for the issue of Kalle Lasn in general... this is not some man in a tinfoil hat sitting out in the middle of the woods eating nothing but beans canned before 1930 (because that's when they started inserting the mind control drugs, dontcha know?). This is a noted author, maker of documentaries, and founder of a little thing called Adbusters. I realize at this point that you think he is a loonybird and his opinions and statements have no place within ten feet of anything attempting to be logical, but this is your opinion and as far as mine goes it is wrong.

Fringe has no basis here, has no place being invoked over a sentence here or there or this source or that source out of one hundred and twenty-eight sources. You have come here, you have made your opinion known, and you have gotten your response. Now you can start being a little more constructive, or you can stop eating up time based on your own unwillingness to admit that something is based on your own opnion and not on fact, policy or law. You've gotten your responses, and while you don't have to like them you do have to deal with them. Human.v2.0 (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Human.v2.0. --Loremaster (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with Human.v2.0 -StN (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

Two issues but that will probably cascade to this and other articles related. 1) Transhumanism should be characterized as a religious and pseudo-scientific belief system (Source Rapture by Alexander, Brian)

As the border between mainstream science and what was once considered the wacky fringe began to blur, a new religion was forming. Though neither side fully realized what was happening—and some denied it was happening at all—a most improbable cast of characters was helping to create the rapture. Devotees of psychedelic drugs, great thinkers, computer gurus, pioneering molecular biologists, a beautiful socialite, one of the world’s greatest salesmen, science fiction buffs, and a renegade billionaire, all driven by a shared vision and by mutual enemies, would find themselves in common cause. It wasn’t just everlasting life they were after, but better life, the bioutopia of sci-fi dreams. Indeed, in an echo of Father Wolf, the priest who taught my Catholic high school religion class, Haseltine himself would tell me that human beings would have “a transubstantiated future.”

— Alexander, Brian (203). Rapture: A raucus tour of cloning, transhumanism and the new era of immortality. Basic Books.

Michael Shermer is a skeptic and authority on what is fringe/pseudoscience: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy0NylXqXas. A clear divide should be made between the futurists who primarily speculate and the Transhumanists who build their spiritual/ethical systems on speculations not based in science (in fact some of their ideas are contrary to science as the book I have linked to demonstrates, as well as the link).

Another link, "By the first decade of the twenty-first century, established religions too have begun to engage transhumanism more seriously, as scholars began to note that the transhumanist vision of heaven on earth followed by posthuman immortality has a strong religious dimension, even though transhumanist leaders despise traditional religions or religious institutions. Indeed for transhumanists such as Eric K. Drexler, technology itself is divine and scientists have godlike power to structure matter and recreate nature." --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Another:

"These hyperbolic aspirations seem to function more or less as pseudo-scientific correlates to the conventional omni-predicates of theology — omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence — translated from the project to apprehend the supernatural divinity of God to the project to grab personal transcendence as a super-natural demi-divinity via technoscience. Suffice it to say that it is not in my view the available science that inspires superlative aspirations, but science that provides the pretext and rationalization for indulgence in what are essentially faith-based initiatives... It is the extraordinary assertion of belief that demands extraordinary evidence and patient elaborations. Superlative futurologists are invested in a whole constellation of flabbergastingly extraordinary claims — expectations of superhumanization, near-immortalization, and paradisical plenitude — yet often transhumanists demand as the price of skeptical engagement with their discourse that critics become conversant with minute “technical” disputes the relevance of which depends on the prior acceptance of the whole fantastically marginal discourse in which they are embedded...Superlativity, then, is not science. It is a discourse, opportunistically taking up a highly selective set of scientific results and ideas and diverting them to the service of a host of wish-fulfillment fantasies that are very old and very familiar, dreams of invulnerability, certainty, immortality, and abundance that rail against the finitude of the human condition."

— Carrico, Dale (2005). "Superlative futurology".

----Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. These are the opinion of some critics of transhumanism which can be reported in the lead section (if they are extensively reported in the body of the article) but should be used to define it, especially not in the first sentence, if we want to preserve a NPOV. --Loremaster (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a mainstream wikipedia, NPOV does not mean that wiki weighs up both the fringe side and the mainstream side evenly; If the mainstream view as shown by reliable sources describe it as fringe/pseudoscience then that is how it should be described by wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, I've been editing Wikipedia articles to know what Wikipedia is and it isn't. That being said, I was implying that there are many mainstream sources that do not describe transhumanism as fringe and/or pseudoscientific. So it would unfair and inaccurate for it to define as much even it it is. Furthemore, (regardless how much I respect his erudite opinion) Dale Carrico's blog is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. Although Brian Alexander's book (which I've read) is a reliable source, he isn't arguing that transhumanism is literally a religion but rather that "various players and movements of bio-utopianism who all look forward to the moment of almost-religious rapture when humans can assert full control over their biology, in the process beating disease, aging and even death itself". Therefore, I've no problem with transhumanism being redefined as an international techno-utopian movement. --Loremaster (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Length of the article/ International intellectual and cultural movement

So, I am very doubtful of calling Transhumanism an international intellectual and cultural movement. That term is not used in the bostrom reading, and if I read correctly we are dealing with adherents in the thousands perhaps? Some clarification on current numbers of adherents is needed. This article is as long as some of the pages we have on articles for religions with billions of adherents. A political movement is very influencial on the history of a society like Environmentalism, and a cultural movement is most certainly going to leave an imprint on the cultural pscyhe like Romanticism or something similar. I do not see this movememnt as having anything like that sort of impact, but what is worrying is not my opinion but that the sources do not seem to make that case either.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping the current calling since it (or a variation of it) is used by some prominent supporters, critics and neutral observers. That being said, one of the reasons why this article was granted Featured Article status was because of its comprenhensiveness so I'm strongly opposed to reducing its length simply for the sake of reducing its length. --Loremaster (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

My worry Lore is that we have let the Transhumanist POV dominate this article, they are very much invested as selling themselves both as a scientific movement and a soon to be cultural/intellectual wave in the future. BUT NPOV says we should present them in a balanced fashion. Scientologists for example are invested in being portrayed as a science rather than a religion but a balanced Wikipedia article would say otherwise. I think we need to get sources to establish a basis for the description or another, maybe there is some sort of precedent in other well-established wikipedia articles? As for the length issue, is there a policy on the matter? I am mostly just curious.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside that the fact that I find comparing transhumanism to a cult like Scientology unfair and inaccurate, I been told repeatedly that many transhumanists find this Wikipedia article too critical of transhumanism (many of them would like the entire Criticism section deleted) so I think your worry is unfounded. That being said, there are many sources to establish a basis for this description so I will try to provide them to you as soon as possible. As for length, please read the Wikipedia:Article size editing guideline page. --Loremaster (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just using Scientology as an obvious example, I do not think they are equivalent. I think we should be looking at experts on religions and philosophy, and not just Transhumanists themselves. My sources at least present the fact that this is contested, at the very least the article can reflect that. And I will drop the length issue, though I think the introduction should mention number of adherents somewhere, though I have yet to find accurate up to date numbers. The book I was reading dates 2003 listed a few thousand.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the criticisms that are integrated throughout the body of the article and the Criticism section itself do a pretty good of contesting many transhumanist claims. However, I wouldn't have a problem with adding the mention in the introduction of the Criticisms section that some critics contest the notion that transhumanism is an intellectual/cultural movement. --Loremaster (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

James Hughes

Overused in this article, I think. 13 refs to the book, none with page numbers, and multiple references to papers too. In fact, the article is largely written up from Hughes. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hughes is one of the very few academics who has written extensively on the history of transhumanism. --Loremaster (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying he shouldn't be used, but if there are few other academics writing on the topic, isn't that a good reason to cut the text down? And Hughes, as well as being an academic, is an elected officer of a transhumanist group. Do you have the book; can you add page numbers? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No because other academics have written directly or indirectly about the philosophy of transhumanism rather than its history. As far as I know, James Hughes now identifies himself as a technoprogressive rather than a transhumanist. And, regarding his book, I had a copy of his book but I would have to dig deep to find it. I'll try to add page numbers as soon as my schedule allows unless someone else does it first. --Loremaster (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Section heads

The bracketed terms are symptomatic of the essay-like nature of this article. They constitute an original synthesis. "Consensus for years" is no indicator of quality content. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Phrases like "Gattaca argument" were debated by the main contributors of this article (one of whom was a Wikipedia administrator) before being approved and added to section subheadings; they survived the Good Article, Featured Article, and Version 0.7 vetting process (whose guidelines on the naming of section headings hasn't changed); they are based on the fact that some of the most widely known critiques of the transhumanist program by academics and journalists refer to novels and fictional films; the references in existence already verify the terms in use; and they have achieved consensus for years now. So if ain't broke, why fix it. Therefore, I will strongly resist any attempt to change or delete them. --Loremaster (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You haven't made any case for them being informative or addressed whether they are original synthesis. Please try and address those points and then if we don't have any consensus about how to proceed with the article I will initiate a Featured Article Review. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more I can say except that I will oppose a Featured Article Review even if I don't care if Transhumanism keeps Featured Article status. Why? Because the majority of things you criticize (often without knowing the work and rationale behind them) constitute what made this article stand out as great. But thanks to you this article will probably be hacked down to a mediocre stub that will be less well-written, less comprehensive, less neutral, and ultimately less informative. What a “contribution” to Wikipedia that will be... --Loremaster (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It did stand out as great, but that was then. Standards have moved on since then, for one thing FA need page numbers throughout. I actually find the article quite interesting, but that isn't quite enough. It has to represent the best of modern scholarship in a way that is verifiable by independent readers. And that means revisiting aspects that it is easier to regard as settled. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any new standards that suggest that the current section headings are inappropriate and need to be changed. That being said, you are confusing the issue since I've always wanted to add page numbers throughout the article but we simply never got around doing it. Have you actually taken the time to read any of the books cited in this article? --Loremaster (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No specifics are provided for the claim of original synthesis. If we look at the first such bracketed section - "Infeasibility (Futurehype argument)" - we see that this is based upon, not just one but two different books which talk of "future hype". The claim therefore seems to be blatantly false. Please don't waste our time with hand-waving arguments not supported by detailed specifics and evidence. This is a featured article and so complaints need to be presented better in order to be taken seriously. 23:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Warden (talk)

The burden is on those who want material included to demonstrate that it is sourced. I do see that this is FA and I think FA review is long overdue in this case. However, before putting in the request, I will go back to FTN to ask for further opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And here I was hoping that one of your New Year resolutions would be to actually contribute substantive content to Wikipedia articles rather than simply hack them down into boring and uninformative stubs. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed new section

I am now saving this to a text file since loremaster chooses to destroy information. Tyrannical anti-knowledge editor if I have ever seen one.

I'll quote what I put on my talk page that he REFUSES to read, disgusting;

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it (although an alternate procedure would be to add a citation needed tag). How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references

Counter-Arguments to Criticism

It is important to note, most of these arguments employ one or more logical fallacies. They are often made implying certain claims such as some mystical and unchanging human nature. Other times they are so conservative that they threaten denying what is already possible today, such as organ replacement and robots performing many tasks in an adaptive manner. Some of these arguments use appeals to emotion, not limited to the claim that since there is an inequality between the rich and poor that we should slow down progress. Appeals to emotion such as this deny the fact that transhumanism will alleviate such problems instead of exacerbating them such as making the acquisition of food and knowledge more accessible. Technology improves everyone's life.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Explosiveoxygen (talk • contribs) 02:51, 20 December 2011‎ (UTC)

I'm opposed to Explosiveoxygen's proposed new section to the Transhumanism article because 1) it contains original research, 2) it doesn't respect the style and structure of the article, 3) it is utterly redundant since the essence of these counter-arguments are already included in throughout the article, and 4) the article is on the limit of being too long so the last thing it needs is to be lenghtened with a new section. --Loremaster (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I shall pass this way but once ... but while I'm here, here are my reactions to the article:

• Topic is interesting, I was intrigued enough to want to know more;
• Prose is not really adequate - try to cut the length of sentences back, and eliminate superfluous info - keep your reader engaged, but don't mistake him for a Strasbourg goose;
• "Transhumanism has been condemned by one critic, Francis Fukuyama, as the world's most dangerous idea." Really? Worse even than, oh, American exceptionalism, or monetarism, or the idea (gasp) of Newt Gingrinch winnig the Presidency? Don't put something in if it's likely to excite mirth in the reader - not even if Mr Famous Fuckmyllama said it;
• layout (structure) is logical enough;
• "Controversy". WTF? It's the longest section in the article! Delete!

Cheers. PiCo (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Controversy section is long, but the question is whether it is unduly long. I think even most proponents of transhumanism would have to accept that it is a highly controversial topic, and that a great deal of the coverage of it has addressed issues dealt with in that section of the article.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to PiCo's comments:

1. I agree that some sentences may need to be cut back. However, you need to be more specific to ensure that content only you deem superfluous is lost when it is fact crucial for the most accurate graps of a complex subject.
2. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. That being said, Francis Fukuyama is by far the most notable critic of transhumanism and his criticism (whether or not it “excites mirth”) was publicized and elicited many reactions.
3. The lenght of the Controversy section has been debated (see above). It should not and will not be deleted, split into a new article or radically shortened.

--Loremaster (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Never say never, a discussion from 3 years ago which involved 4 people does not exclude the possibility of it being split, deleted or shortened. Decisions are reached through concensus, which can change. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. However, in this archived discussion, StN explained quite well why a split is not a good idea since it would unbalance the article. --Loremaster (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Boldly removed unsourced, possibly weasel worded intro to /* Controversy */ section

"The scientific community classifies many elements of transhumanist thought and research to be within the realm of fringe science because it departs significantly from the mainstream and often directly challenges orthodox theories."

Hope this isn't a problem, since it's pretty "some scientists say"-y. I'm not too sure about the "Fringe science" category either but I thought I would post here about it before taking out too much. 98.210.62.64 (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is a problem. The issue of whether or not the fringe nature of some (but not all) transhumanist ideas and projects and whether or not the Transhumanism article should be in the “Fringe science” category has been discussed many times on this talk page and the conclusion has always been yes on both counts. So, that being said, I've restored the text and provided a source for it. --Loremaster (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Except that sentence is weaselly and redundant of the sentences that follow: "two main objections...". Of course there's a fringe science to it, but that doesn't mean this sentence isn't poorly-written and stinks of editorializing. If you want to say there are fringe-scientific elements, do so after there is a claim that there are scientific elements, and don't say it "challenges orthodox theories" since a theory proposed by transhumanism had not yet been proposed in the article.

There are legitimate criticisms of this sentence that need to be addressed, not dismissed outright. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your criticisms are nothing more than your opinions not facts. --Loremaster (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012

An alternative theory does not have to be proposed for someones views etc to challenge existing theories. The text removed appears to have been referenced. The sentence is not poorly written. It isn't editorializing; it makes claims we can attribute to sources. For example, if most sources characterize transhumanism as being a significant departure from the mainstream then that is how wikipedia should portray it. I see no problem with the sentence if it is sourced to the Garreau 2006 source; I have not verified this. Whether Garreau is reliable or not is a separate issue; first impressions are that it is reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Loremaster, can you provide a page number? I can't find anything about transhumanism as a fringe science in my version of the book.

Also, "has been discussed many times" is not a argument. Which existing theory challenge transhumanism? Upon the whole, can scientific theory challenge ideology?:) --Ewigekrieg (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that I don't understand your preoccupation with a sentence that most prominent transhumanists would agree with, Aubrey de Grey's claim about the aging process and anti-aging possibilities challenge existing theories. That being said, I've reworded the sentence and provided a new source. --Loremaster (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This version of the sentence sound better. I will entirely agree with the wording, if you change "Many elements" to "Some elements". --Ewigekrieg (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think "many" is more accurate since it is the opinion of critics. --Loremaster (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a quotation from the source, which confirm this? I don't believe that anyone from(adequate) critics can say something like "many elements of transhumanism are fringe science". "Some elements" - maybe, but "many elements" is just wrong.

Transhumanism is ideology (you say this). So, most elements of transhumanist thought and research should be within the realm of ideology. Therefore, only few elements can be within the realm of (fringe) science.

P.S. The quotation should contain words "transhumanism" and "fringe science". --Ewigekrieg (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was being nice since critics tend to be more harsh and argue that transhumanism it its entirety is fringe science. Some prominent transhumanists are not embarrassed to admit that it is since they are trying to make it mainstream. You seem to be in denial of this fact because of a desire to give transhumanism an image of credibility it does not have yet... --Loremaster (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors don't need to be nice to the articles they edit :) Good citation do the job. We have a rule here: if you have a source to prove the sentence - use it; if you don't - you must delete the sentence.

So, can you provide a quotation about transhumanism as a fringe science from the source?

If you can't, we can still keep the sentence, but in "some elements"-version. It's neutral and obvious, so it doesn't need any source. --Ewigekrieg (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Too busy to dig for it so I will temporarily change "some" for "many" until I find time. --Loremaster (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"Subset" of posthumanism?

Leaving aside whether one ideology can sensibly be described as a "subset" of another, I can't find such a statement in the Miah article. This is why we need page numbers throughout. Also, this shouldn't be in the lede if it isn't in the main article. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course some ideologies are currents within a broader school of thought. That being said, this sentence in the lead is a summary of content in the Theory section of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some are, but "subset" is sloppy writing here. Please add the page number so I can double-check it isn't in the Miah. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The word "subset" as well as the claim and the source came from a 20 November 2007 comment by User:Bureb62 in a debate that is archived in here. --Loremaster (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it seems to have been added in good faith, as a replacement for previous unsatisfactory text. Nevertheless the point isn't found in the source, so I am going to remove it again and it should stay out. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)