Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 11

message: I've found the source for Bailey's criticism of Bill McKibben' argument: Enough Already: A leading environmentalist makes a foolish case against technological innovation
--Loremaster 18:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Enough counter-argument needs to be expanded with some other source as well. --Loremaster 18:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion the last sentence of this section is unfair to McKibben.  Is calling something "Neo-Romantic" a counter-argument?  It sounds pretty nice to me, but in the context it seems it is meant to be unpleasant.  However, it it not explained why.  Also, saying that close scrutiny of the Ming Dynasty, the Amish, etc. show them to represent the opposite of what McKibben claims, without describing what he says about them, is uninformative.  The arguments in the article should be self-contained.  Bailey's argument in the next-to-last sentence is relevant; the one in the last sentence is not.--StN 02:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to be with StN here. I don't think we need so much detail about what Bailey says. The idea is just to give a quick idea of what has been said in response to McKibben's argument (as reported). I'd be happy to see the last sentence edited down somewhat. Metamagician3000 03:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but I think the previous version of this response (before it was expanded by Anville) was rather fluffy. The current version still is to a certain extent. --Loremaster 16:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough section 

message: I think the Brave New World argument is about the specific erosion of human equality, social order or even a species ethic but not morality in general. I therefore think we should change the sub-title. --Loremaster 18:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Social order and human equality overlap with other criticisms.  (Actually, the social order was pretty much under control in the novel).  Species ethic is the one element particular to BNW and this section.  But this is an unfamiliar term that corresponds most closely to morality in ordinary language.  So I think the subtitle is ok as is.--StN 21:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Morality deals with that which is regarded as right or wrong. How does biotechnology threaten people's sense of what is right and wrong? If you read the entire Brave New Word argument, I think the central issue is the threat it poses to human equality *and* solidarity. --Loremaster 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's just that. Regardless of whether we've done it justice, the idea comes through in Kass and Fukuyama that morality in a more traditional sense is somehow being eroded and that technologies of human enhancement will somehow add to this. E.g. Kass compares our current sexual mores to those of Brave New World, thinks we are going down the same path, and makes some vague connection with cloning. I find it all quite difficult to understand but it seems to be about us somehow progressively losing things like religion, connection with the natural order of things, the ups and downs of a traditional lifelong monogamous understanding of romantic love, and so on. And when you step back from it, the populist claim that we're headed for a Brave New World isn't essentially about egalitarianism and so on; it is about social conservative fears of a world in which sex, reproduction and entertainment are too easy and we have somehow lost the difficulties and embarrassments that these people find so valuable, not to mention our biological connection with nature. The idea is partly that, if we use technology to remake the world and ourselves closer to our desires, much of our psychological experience will be flattened out and much of value will be lost - or something like that. I am so out of sympathy with this way of thinking that I find it difficult even to put into words, but I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that much of the techno-fear is coming from the direction of a very conservative approach to morality in general. I do think there are some words in the article that allude to all this. Metamagician3000 01:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Metamagician.  And though I don't value many of the same things that Kass does, I think he is right that powerful technologies change what people consider right and wrong.  This is a clear source of conflict in the indigenous rights community where technology is confronting deeply traditional values.  It happens more incrementally in the mainstream culture, but it still happens.--StN 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm actually completely perplexed, Loremaster, that you could ask "How does biotechnology threaten people's sense of what is right and wrong?"  Do you mean that just biotechnology can't do this, or no technology can?  Did technology have nothing to do with the differences in people's moral values from neolithic times (or medieval times) to the present?  Did the birth control pill have no influence on moral views concerning female sexuality?  A case in point from more recent times:  a strong consensus among (non-pro-life) reproductive and developmental biologists throughout the 1980s and 90s was that research on excess in vitro human embryos was acceptable, but generating new human embryos expressly for research was not.  When mammalian cloning and human stem cells were described in 1997 and 1998, respectively, it became clear that patient-customized stem cells could be produced by creating clonal embryos using the patient's nuclei.  The consensus rapidly changed to one where the production of human embryos for research was now acceptable.  A transitional moral position, still in effect in some quarters, is that a clonal embryo is not a "real" embryo, since it is unlikely to develop into a healthy human. This transition in morality was brought about by new technologies, with their attendant scientific, medical and professional opportunities.--StN 02:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: StN, I know all that. In a rush, I didn't formulate my question properly. However, due to Metamagician's comments, I've been convinced that this sub-title is appropriate. --Loremaster 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brave New World argument = Erosion of morality? 

message: Finally a relevant argument! Not too persuasive as far as I am concerned, and a bit clumsily stated, but at least it's responsive to the social divisiveness question.  Much better than petulantly reverting to a non sequitur.  Bravo!--StN 00:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no petulance on my part. The problem is that the previous version of this section did not expand on what is meant by egalitarian liberal eugenics. I wanted to do this all along but I didn't have access to good sources yet. As for the non sequitur, although I would prefer that they do, counter-arguments do not need to respond to every specific critique contained in the argument it follows. --Loremaster 00:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''From Chance to Choice''

message: StN added the following "counter-counter-argument" in the Eugenics Wars section: Lee Silver, a biologist and writer on the genetic future who coined the term "reprogenetics" and supports its applications, has nonetheless expressed concern that these methods could create a two-tiered society of genetically-engineered "haves" and "have nots" in a society in which social democratic reforms lag behind implementation of enhancement technologies.
I've consolidated part of this text with the initial argument: While some critics acknowledge the differences between coercive and elective forms of eugenics they argue that the social stratification that may result from the latter would still be problematic in a society in which social democratic reforms lag behind implementation of enhancement technologies. In particular, in their view, it could present unprecedented challenges to democratic governance, even if it came about as the cumulative result of individual choices. --Loremaster 19:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the entire text of Lee Silver's argument to the Gattaca argument and restored the initial Eugenics Wars argument to the previous version. --Loremaster 23:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to add that I think the Gattaca argument is essentially about the dark side of liberal eugenics while the Eugenics Wars argument is about the specter of coercive eugenics and violent conflict. The arguments and counter-arguments should therefore reflect this in order to avoid the two sections needlessly overlapping. --Loremaster 23:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the Eugenics Wars argument to reflect this reasoning. I think it is now a solid and forceful argument ending with a devastating line. --Loremaster 00:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lee Silver's argument

message: Could someone supply a list of prominent papers and books on the subject for those who are interested? --Oldak Quill 15:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many relevant sources are listed in the References and cited throughout the article.--StN 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I've just finished reading the article and it's scattered with further reading. --Oldak Quill 20:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The Transhumanist Resources pages on the WTA website might also be a good source. --Loremaster 16:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: "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 Crank Dot Net, quite an enjoyable little site.  Anville 21:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --Loremaster 22:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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.--StN 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having now read it, I agree. --Loremaster 17:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 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?  Anville 19:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, before moving to a new article such as Posthumanism, 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. --Loremaster 20:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 and 4 have been done. Can someone work on the rest? --Loremaster 17:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice and bizarre 

message: Beyond expanding the Frankenstein counter-argument to address some of the issues raised by StN, I am now safistified with the current version of the Criticisms section of the Transhumanism article and don't plan to edit it in any significant manner for the foreseeable future. --Loremaster 17:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the recent addition of the Peter Pan argument, I think this Criticisms section of the Transhumanism article is quite full and I would tend to be opposed to having other arguments added. However, I welcome the improvement and slight expansion of the existing arguments and counter-arguments. --Loremaster 17:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About the Criticisms section

message: The entry state that:
:"In his book Our Posthuman Future and in a Foreign Policy magazine article,Fukuyama 2004 political economist and philosopher Francis Fukuyama designates transhumanism as one of the world's most dangerous ideas because it may undermine the progressive ideals of liberal democracy, through a fundamental alteration of "human nature" and an erosion of human equality."
This should be reformulated. As the critics which immediately follow this paragraph makes clear, it is quite strange to read that Fukuyama, an ardent proponent of liberal democracy, defends this POV by the argument of an "erosion of human equality". Why? For the simple reason that Fukuyama, and any liberal, believes in de jure equality, not de facto equality. This is, of course, one of the main distinction between liberalism & socialism. Thus, why would "transhumanism" threatens de jure equality? 
I hope this help understand why this paragraph is a bit meaningless, and should be changed. The current formulation might lead someone to the rather strange conclusion that Fukuyama is advocating socialism! And the critics that come immediately after are, in fact, true liberal critics, which Fukuyama should have endorsed. Fukuyama's argumentation must be different from the one explained hereby! Lapaz 15:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I think you may be misinterpreting this entry, feel free to improve the formulation of Fukuyama's Brave New World argument. --Loremaster 17:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In response to Lapaz's argument I have removed the "equality" phrase from the description of Fukuyama's position.  Society doesn't afford the same rights to all organisms.  It is a matter of disagreement by how much genetic engineering can change human nature or species identity.  If you agree with Fukuyama and Habermas, Bailey's response is not relevant.  if you don't agree with them, then you might agree with Bailey.  The new phrasing removes the logical problem Lapaz identified.--StN 00:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the word "progressive" with "egalitarian". Does anyone have any objections? --Loremaster 18:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is fine with me.--StN 19:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brave New World, "equality", Fukuyama 

message: Correct me if I wrong but it seems that the numeric order of the notes is completely out of whack. Can someone work on this? --Loremaster 22:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes and References 

message: I've temporarily deleted the following text from the Terminator counter-argument:
:An example of this would be to develop Friendly AI before implementing molecular nanotechnology - the reasoning is that human brains, with their obvious mathematical limitations, would be incompetent to write safe, effective programmes for nanorobot swarms. However, benevolent artificially intelligent computers with the ability to calculate with perfect accuracy the ultimate outcome of any sequence of instructions, would, it is claimed, be able to control nanomachine swarms as easily as human beings control their own limbs. The notion, though, that the detailed behavior of such systems can, in principle, be predicted and controlled with perfect accuracy, is disputed by modern complexity theorists.
I mistakenly assumed that the first two of these three sentences came from Nick Bostrom's essay on existential risks so I left them alone when they wered added by anonymous user 216.129.211.105 on August 1st, 2006. Can someone cite a source? --Loremaster 12:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminator argument 

message: A book by Edward Regis has been inserted into the reference list at some point in the past, but with no citation to it in the main text.  It seems to be an affectionate look at fringe science, including transhumanism.  There may be a relevant place to cite it, but if whoever added it, or someone else, can't come up with one soon, it should be deleted.--StN 06:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, though it is in fact quite an important book about transhumanism and related stuff as things stood back in the 90s. In fact this was the book that actually introduced me to transhumanism more than anythng else did. Its tone is rather ambivalent, half making fun of transhumanism in a sort of gonzo way, half treating it affectionately. Have a look at it if you get a chance. Metamagician3000 07:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Regis mention John Spencer in his book? --Loremaster 12:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: StN removed the Regis reference. --Loremaster 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regis reference