Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 13

message: On November 22, 2006, the Transhumanism page was selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated FA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Natsci. Does someone know which version of this page will actually be included in the release version of Wikipedia? --Loremaster 22:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know? --Loremaster 20:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not me. I think I might have been the one who set this in train by nominating it for 0.5, but I don't know how decisions like that are made. I'd assume - but it's only an assumption - that they'd use the most recent version they can. Metamagician3000 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking the same thing. Oh well. --Loremaster 14:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release version of Wikipedia 

message: This conveys absolutely nothing to me. I continue to think that these parenthetical names for arguments were once useful scaffolding when we just had a few such arguments with easy associations with, e.g. Brave New World and The Terminator, but they are now getting too OR-ish and obscure. Metamagician3000 03:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we deleted any mention of Peter Pan in the Contempt for Flesh section and we both thought that Peter Pan was a clumsly analogy, I felt the need to find a new title for this argument. I chose The Fountain because of extensive discussion of the film on the wta-list and references made to reviews of the film by bioconservative thinkers. The film captures quite well Mary Midgley's argument. Have you seen it? --Loremaster 03:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I haven't seen it. Sigh. I realise that getting rid of these names now would cause problems, but this film is hardly a cultural touchstone like Frankenstein, or Brave New World, or The Terminator. I guess we have no choice but to use something, and from you've said I guess it's as good as anything. Wry smile. Metamagician3000 04:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what people, who have read the article, told me offline, the names of the argument are a useful and cool gimmick. I say we keep it and move on to more important things. (FYI: I've been working on trying to get Ebionites Featured Article status...) --Loremaster 04:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to nudge Second Life towards the FA process, after it had a very premature nomination a few weeks ago. That and some other projects here. Metamagician3000 07:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep up the good work since Second Life deserves the publicity that comes with being a Featured Article status. --Loremaster 08:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Fountain?

message: An anonymous user added the following text to the Lead section which I move to the History section:
:Transhumanism is sometimes erroneously referred to as "Posthumanism," especially in the United States where that term is not as common outside academic sources. In reality, transhumanism is a subordinate of posthumanism, and while all transhumanists are necessarily posthumanists, not all posthumanists are transhumanists
This text obviously needs to cite a source. I've tentatively added Hayles, N. Katherine. (1999) How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. University Of Chicago Press. Is this a fair and accurate source? --Loremaster 06:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, 'everyone knows' the transhuman is a milestone on the path towards the posthuman. Shouldn't be hard to find a source for that. --Joffeloff 16:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Joffeloff, you seem to be confusing posthuman with posthumanism, which are entirely two different things. --Loremaster 15:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that posthumanism is used for both meanings. I was presuming the author of the statement meant that transhumanism is subordinate of posthumanism in the same way the transhuman is simply a step to the posthuman. --Joffeloff 20:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood the presumption you made but you were mistaken. --Loremaster 22:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transhumanism as subordinate of Posthumanism 

message: Since I'm going to busy for a while, can someone work on citing the following articles in the Frankenstein argument?
*The Yuck Factor Activists try to patent fear.
*Anti-Cloning Disinformation? Desperate opponents try to frighten lawmakers with bogus scares.
*Right-Wing Biological Dread The Subhumans are coming! The Subhumans are coming!
Thank you in advance. --Loremaster 22:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: StN, can please you work on this? --Loremaster 22:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have cited one of the above.  I think that's sufficient.--StN 02:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. However, I changed the citation for the most relevant one. --Loremaster 15:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed 

message: I noticed that Extropy Institute was removed so I put it back.  Extropy Institute's name and the website are operating, regardless of the non-profit being closed down.  Extropy Institue's website it remains a viable site of transhumanism. It is a good idea to keep this name on the external links mainly because it is becoming a library resource. ( Loremaster if you have any problems with this, why don't you discuss it with me and I am sure we can resolve any conflicts that you have with my editing it back in.) Natasha Vita-More 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Primo Posthuman was completely deleted from Wikipedia probably due to the fact the person who uploaded it didn't use the appropriate copyrights label. So feel free to upload the image back into the system. "Transhumanist Arts & Culture" is not highlighted in the Fiction and Arts section because the contributor who worked most on this section was unsure as what to include and exclude from the information available online. This has nothing to do with any bias and I find it puzzling that you always assume that it is... Regardless, feel free to to edit the Fiction and Arts section to add an objective and concise mention of "Transhumanist Arts & Culture". --Loremaster 13:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Natasha. I have no idea how the image came to be deleted, and I doubt that it had anything to do with the people mainly involved in the article. If you could upload it yourself, it would put any copyright issues beyond doubt - and I for one would like to see it put back into the article. Also, I realise that you might feel reticent about editing the article yourself, but you can always make specific suggestions here on the talk page. The main thing that can be difficult for us is that Wikipedia needs to be able to cite references for any statements that are made which are not totally uncontroversial. That might not be such a problem with an article at a raw stage of development, but this is a Featured Article, and we need to meet a high scholarly standard to keep it that way. Metamagician3000 14:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Loremaster and Metamagician3000. I do not know how to put the image back up, as I could not find the history of when it was removed.  Your providing directions for me would be excellent.  I do remember several people email me for copyright permission and I granted it. I am delighted to know that removing it was not a bias and that you would like to see it returned as well. :-)  I shall do this when you advise me how to perform the edits.  Best wishes to you both and for your enormous contributions.  Natasha Vita-More 21:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, again. I don't think you need to worry about the past history. Just start again. If you see the box on the left of your screen called "toolbox", you'll see that there is an "Upload file" link. If you click on that, the process should then be fairly transparent (I hope ... I know I found it confusing at first). The main thing when you upload the file is to click on an option in the field about copyright making it clear that you are the copyright holder and that you release it under the GFDL or into the public domain (on the rare occasions when I have uploaded images, I have released them to the public domain, but I'm not sure that you would want to go that far; it's obviously up to you). Once it is uploaded, you could either insert it into the article yourself or just let us know that the image is there. Tell us if any of this is unclear or fails to answer your question, or if you encounter any problem. Metamagician3000 22:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this not just a bit ironic?--StN 01:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL Just because you are a transhumanist or even a transhuman doesn't mean you have to be adept at using every technology especially when they are not user-friendly. :) --Loremaster 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: LOL! ... LOL!! Natasha Vita-More 17:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, picture is uploaded. Name is "trans-post-human2.jpg"  I'll let you insert into top of article  :-)  Natasha Vita-More 18:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Loremaster 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extropy Institute link 

message: I noticed that my design "Primo Posthuman" was removed.  The current images are uneventful and it looked better before. Since Biotech Art is at the forefront and "Primo Posthuman" is an exemplar image for BioTech Art, it seems strange to have removed it. And on that note, it is quite strange that Transhumanist Arts & Culture is not highlighted in this article.  Transhumanism ought to be beyond such bias and truly ought to be reflected on this site.  Can we discuss this and resolve it? Natasha Vita-More 20:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC
:Primo Posthuman was completely deleted from Wikipedia probably due to the fact the person who uploaded it didn't use the appropriate copyrights label. So feel free to upload the image back into the system. "Transhumanist Arts & Culture" is not highlighted in the Fiction and Arts section because the contributor who worked most on this section was unsure as what to include and exclude from the information available online. This has nothing to do with any bias and I find it puzzling that you always assume that it is... Regardless, feel free to to edit the Fiction and Arts section to add an objective and concise mention of "Transhumanist Arts & Culture". --Loremaster 13:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Natasha. I have no idea how the image came to be deleted, and I doubt that it had anything to do with the people mainly involved in the article. If you could upload it yourself, it would put any copyright issues beyond doubt - and I for one would like to see it put back into the article. Also, I realise that you might feel reticent about editing the article yourself, but you can always make specific suggestions here on the talk page. The main thing that can be difficult for us is that Wikipedia needs to be able to cite references for any statements that are made which are not totally uncontroversial. That might not be such a problem with an article at a raw stage of development, but this is a Featured Article, and we need to meet a high scholarly standard to keep it that way. Metamagician3000 14:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Loremaster and Metamagician3000. I do not know how to put the image back up, as I could not find the history of when it was removed.  Your providing directions for me would be excellent.  I do remember several people email me for copyright permission and I granted it. I am delighted to know that removing it was not a bias and that you would like to see it returned as well. :-)  I shall do this when you advise me how to perform the edits.  Best wishes to you both and for your enormous contributions.  Natasha Vita-More 21:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, again. I don't think you need to worry about the past history. Just start again. If you see the box on the left of your screen called "toolbox", you'll see that there is an "Upload file" link. If you click on that, the process should then be fairly transparent (I hope ... I know I found it confusing at first). The main thing when you upload the file is to click on an option in the field about copyright making it clear that you are the copyright holder and that you release it under the GFDL or into the public domain (on the rare occasions when I have uploaded images, I have released them to the public domain, but I'm not sure that you would want to go that far; it's obviously up to you). Once it is uploaded, you could either insert it into the article yourself or just let us know that the image is there. Tell us if any of this is unclear or fails to answer your question, or if you encounter any problem. Metamagician3000 22:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this not just a bit ironic?--StN 01:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL Just because you are a transhumanist or even a transhuman doesn't mean you have to be adept at using every technology especially when they are not user-friendly. :) --Loremaster 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! ... LOL!! Natasha Vita-More 17:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, picture is uploaded. Name is "trans-post-human2.jpg"  I'll let you insert into top of article  :-)  Natasha Vita-More 18:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Loremaster 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Primo Posthuman

message: Current edit:  "There is a variety of opinion within transhumanist thought. Many of the leading transhumanist thinkers hold complex and subtle views that are under constant revision and development. Some distinctive currents of transhumanism are identified and listed here in alphabetical order:"
Input from a fresh reader: The article may yield greater utility if the Currents section gave associations and organizations and perhaps even people's names as examples.  The categories of criticism have great examples of publications and people.  More links to articles advancing the specific arguements could help keep things concise. I, for one, enjoyed the back and forth of the Criticisms section as it currently stands- it isn't too long, yet.  As a reader without a vested interest in who got the last word in, I didn't notice a "winner" or "loser" for any of the Criticisms presented.
Thanks for all of your collective hard work and the resulting great article. Adelord 22:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments, Adelord. I've also been thinking of expanding and improving the currents section along those lines. --Loremaster 22:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have my thanks as well.  See, maybe that's what we need:  outside perspective.  Anville 18:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see any need to expand it. If these "currents" are notable enough (as some are), they should have their own articles with appropriate detail there. Metamagician3000 03:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about adding new currents. I was refering to the suggestions made by Adelord above? --Loremaster 03:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I took you to mean. My point was that if there is more material available on these, and if they are sufficiently notable, their own articles would be a better place for the material (and we should merely link, or whatever, to those articles). On reflection, I should add that I'm not inflexible about this. E.g. what if one of the "currents" is not sufficiently important to justify its own article, but there's a well-sourced sentence or two that really should be said about it in Wikipedia? Well, on that scenario, it might well be that the material should go in this article. In short, I'm open to argument on a case by case basis, but my general bias is against expanding the material here on the respective currents. Metamagician3000 07:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And just to try to be totally precise, and at the risk of creating more confusion about what I think, I do of course support continuing to saying something about each of the currents - I'd be opposed to them only being in a "see also" list, but no one is suggesting that. I'd also be pleased with any further citations - as opposed to further main text - to strengthen the section. Metamagician3000 07:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. I guess I will leave the section as is. --Loremaster 08:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currents and Criticisms

message: As StN once wrote during the Featured Article nomination discussion: 
"I agree with Loremaster that we are not coining new terms, new arguments or counterarguments. I have inserted a specific reference to Leon Kass's use of the 'Brave New World' argument. However, I do not think this is necessary in most of the other cases. As we note in the introduction to the Criticisms section, the various literary works and films *themselves* represent critiques of transhumanism. While these obviously do not take the form of 'arguments', they reflect, and are reflected, in arguments made by others. It is not new research to assert, for example, that the genetically divided world portrayed in Gattaca is the kind of dystopic future contemplated by Bill McKibben and James Hughes (though they come to different conclusions about it). In other contexts, people are said to make 'slippery slope' arguments even though they don't use the actual words 'slippery slope'."
So I urge the casual editor not to delete these phrases because you think they violate Wikipedia's no original research policy or that because it returns few very few Google hits. --Loremaster 19:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands, the section has not even one citation of a notable commentator (whether of films or of transhumanism) professing The Fountain has anything to do with the subject at hand. After a bit of Googling, I cannot find even one professional review that mentions The Fountain and transhumanism in the same article (this article by George Dvorsky was the closest I could find). This is an issue of verifiability, not truth. The paragraph you quoted says these works "reflect, and are reflected, in the arguments made by others." Where are those others, and what evidence do you have that The Fountain properly reflects their arguments? This is just as much OR as describing the United States' Drug Enforcement Administration as invoking "the Requiem for a Dream argument" on the grounds that the movie clearly depicts the negative health effects of illegal drugs, which the DEA emphasizes regularly. -- Schaefer (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I chose The Fountain is, in part, because of an extensive debate about the film on transhumanist mailing lists, in which one militant suggested that the WTA should organize a boycott because of it's anti-transhumanist memes but was voted down. --Loremaster 14:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've changed the name of the argument to Fountain of Youth to refer to the concept rather than the film. I've also changed the sentence that refers to film to satisfy the demands of verifiability. --Loremaster 16:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argument names in the Criticisms section 

message: Loremaster, if you produce Hughes one more time to purvey his jejune pseudoscience, I swear I will resurrect Marshall McLuhan to pummel both of you.--StN 02:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive my lack of culture but I am not familiar with the Woody Allen film you must be refering to. That being said, the article already makes quite clear that we stating Hughes's opinion. However, I can edit it to emphazise the point even more. Also, please respond to my comments on your talk page. --Loremaster 02:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry.  It's hardly a lack of culture on your part, just evidence that there are no (longer) canonical works or narratives.  But for the allusion, see Marshall McLuhan, in the subsection McLuhan's influence: McLuhan in popular culture.--StN 02:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I knew who McLuhan was before you mentioned him. Have you read this essay? It's quite relevant. --Loremaster 02:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had little doubt you knew McLuhan's work.  The citation I gave was to the Woody Allen connection.  Thanks for the essay on MM; I hadn't seen it previously.  Please also see my talk page.--StN 03:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing me to the WA connection. That's hilarious! --Loremaster 03:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Woody Allen ploy

message: The following is the content of an email forwarded to me by a colleague who is in contact with Mark Alan Walker:
"The limits to phenotype plasticity can be demostrated by sending a chimp to Cambridge on a full scholarship. All the educational resources in the world won't get a chimp to the point of what humans typically achieve by the end of grade 1. Chimps and bonobos differ from us in about 500 genes. Bonobos and and chimps, which are often not distinguished by the untrained eye, differ from each other in about 250 genes. So, very few genetic changes can have a dramatic effect on phenotype. For example, chimps brain volume is about 400cc, ours is about 1300cc.  I have talked about the "homo bigheadus" experiment with a number of scientists to double or so human brain volume. (This is the idea that we can target one or a few homeobox genes that control the large scale features of the brain. Details can be found in my JET paper). Typically they recoil in horror precisely because they realize that, all ethical questions aside, we could perform the homo bigheadus experiment today. Perhaps the critics point is that we do not know what the outcome of such experiments will be. At least in the case of homo bigheadus, this is true enough. But we could in principle try and have some chance at creating something that was so much smarter than us that it deserved a different species category. So, if the critic's point is that we don't have the knowledge or expertise at this point to precisely predict the outcome of such genetic engineering experiments, then she is right. But then again, if this is her position then she is attacking a strawperson."
--Loremaster 05:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mark Alan Walker's response

message: Can and does anyone want to help to expand the Posthumanism article? --Loremaster 04:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posthumanism article 

message: I've improved the Human enhancement article. Can someone help me finish the technologies section? Please read the talk page before you do. --Loremaster 03:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human enhancement article 

message: What is this all about? I'm sure that some transhumanists are rule-utilitarians, but others may be act utilitarians, Kantians, neo-Aristotelean virtue theorists, contractarians, Randian libertarians, moral sceptics, Nietzschean perfectionists, or even divine command theorists of some unusual kind ... or something else. We must try to avoid typecasting what transhumanists think beyond the basic optimism about enhancing human capabilities that they share. Some ethical theories may form a bad mix with transhumanism (e.g. some vulgarisations of Kantian theory), but a wide range of views may attract different people in the broader transhumanist camp. Metamagician3000 06:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. I was basing this claim on a generalization made by political scientist Klaus-Gerd Giesen in his critical survey of the beliefs of transhumanists. I'll delete it in light of your objection. --Loremaster 07:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've replaced the sentence “from a rule utilitarian perspective” with “mainly from a secular posthumanist perspective”. --Loremaster 09:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rule-utilitarianism?

message: Having invested a lot of time and energy in editing the Transhumanism article, the primary contributors insist that all claims for and against transhumanism, or otherwise, be accurate, properly attributed, and well-referenced. We want the article to be the best possible resource for anyone (e.g. students, journalists, cultural critics) who is interested in the subject. Despite having conflicting views, we all cooperated in an effort to make the article comprehensive, rigorous and stable enough for Featured Article status. Therefore, we recommend that you take the time to discuss any major addition or deletion of article content in this talk page before proceeding otherwise the article may be reverted to an older version. --Loremaster 00:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is indeed an excellent article, I don't think any special procedures for handling future edits are warranted. I would worry about setting a precedent for other Featured Articles, some of which fall far below the quality standards set here (see the May 31 Nostradamus article for an example).--Chris 01:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't proposing any special procedure. I was simply pointing out something that is common sense on Wikipedia. --Loremaster 18:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How's the view from that high horse?  Wiki welcomes any and all useful, properly formatted edits.  There's no need to check with the "primary contributors" (ie, you and you alone) to get permission before editing.  Don't threaten blanket reversion to any future edit you may disagree with. Alvis 16:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look through the talk archives, you will quickly see that the primary contributors to the Transhumanism article have been User:Metamagician3000 (who is a Wikipedia administrator), User:StN and myself. Regardless, I have "never threaten blanket reversion to any future edit I may disagree". I have warned a new editor that his undiscussed, unsubstantive and clumsly edits, many of which go against the consensus surrounding this article will be reverted or, at the very least, reworded. So the view from that high horse is quite good. --Loremaster 19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read through the archives after coming across this page through the Wikiquette alerts.  I have to say, though your edits are by and large sound, your attitude towards others' edits is highly disturbing.  Saying that you "recommend that you take the time to discuss any major addition or deletion of article content in this talk page before proceeding otherwise the article may be reverted to an older version" is a bald-faced threat to OK edits with you (and these other "primary contributors") or you'll remove them at your whim. Alvis 05:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can obviously choose to misinterpret what I said anyway you want. The primary contributors (which are User:Metamagician3000, User:StN and myself) have always discussed major (and sometimes minor) changes to the article before editing the article to avoid a dispute or a revert war. This is just common sense. --Loremaster 16:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Alvis misinterpreted what you said: the criticism is of your (apparent) attitude, not of your actions.  And I agree -- for example, I've never before come across the words "the primary contributors insist" on Wikipedia.  I assume your motives are pure, but your words do come across as unnecessarily heavy handed. atakdoug 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I obviously don't care of people's perception of my attitude since the real issue is the legitimacy of my actions. As far the words you have a problem with, they were actually written by Wikipedia adminstrator User:Metamagician3000. --Loremaster 18:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If people's perceptions of your attitude -- correct or incorrect -- dissuade them from making potentially valuable contributions, then that's an issue, too. atakdoug 01:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since only one user (whose contributions have mostly been undiscussed, unsubstantive and clumsly) has complained, I don't think it's much of an issue. The number of people who have praised both my work and atttitude is countless. --Loremaster 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, countless people have praised your attitude?  I'm betting we could count them pretty easily.  And notice, that people haven't complained about what's going on here doesn't mean you aren't scaring them off.  What if some are newcomers to Wikipedia, and get the impression from looking at the history and the top of this talk page that this is how it's supposed to be done?  They'll leave thinking that when an article is considered by the primary contributors to be reasonably complete and stable, then others should not add content without clearing it with the primary contributors first.  This seems to be your view of how the system works; I submit that it is a minority view. atakdoug 02:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Although I won't back up all of Noclevername's edits, some seem to be reverted by you for no good reason - what was wrong with ?  Looking through the talk page archive, I see nothing about a problem with including mention of Harrison Bergeron - no argument regarding the consensus you claim gives you cause to make reverts - other than you didn't write it? Alvis 05:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The arguments in the criticism section is not intentend to be a repository of every novel or film which depicts elements of these arguments, especially when many have commented that this section is quite long. The Gattaca argument was named after the film Gattaca not Harrison Bergeron. This is an issue that has been discussed in the past. --Loremaster 16:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The category is the "genetic divide" - the Gattaca mention is secondary.  This work is in regards to that category.  The fact that an editor felt the need to augment the entry means that it is NOT complete.  And no, this example has NOT been discussed on any archived talk page, unless you can cite otherwise. Alvis 06:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The arguments in the criticism section only mentions books or films which have been cited by critics in their case against a a particular consequence of transhumanism. We've discussed the importance of this in relation to the Foutain of Youth argument was previously named after the film The Fountain until someone pointed out that it has never been cited by critics. --Loremaster 02:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IMPORTANT: New Contributors

message: "manga and anime (Appleseed, 1985; Ghost in the Shell, 1995)"
Okay, Appleseed the manga was 1985 and the anime was 2004, Ghost in the Shell manga was 1989 and anime was 1995.  Right now we are quoting one manga, one anime, any reason?  I would go either with all 4 dates or whatever came first.Disco 07:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll make the minor correction. --Loremaster 23:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor prob with Fiction and Art 

message: Despite continuing to tweak the article from time to time, I don't think there is anything major left to do beyond improving articles that are related to Transhumanism. --Loremaster 15:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last words? 

message: Chicago Manual Style (CMS):
aging. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aging (accessed: February 19, 2007).
is there a reason to prefer the more unusual style? Whateley23 11:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia article has an article on this topic using the so-called unusual style. See Ageing. --Loremaster 12:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so long as you have a reason. it still looks wrong. Whateley23 09:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you make your case on the Talk:Ageing that the title of that article should be “aging” rather than “ageing”. If you succeed in convincing people to do it, I would immediately change the spelling here. --Loremaster 10:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: You have a right to be proud of and to have a vested interest in this article However, I strongly recommend you have a good long look at Wikipedia policy about article ownership. It is the nature of this Wikipedian beast to have articles, even the ones you love and have nurtured, to be edited and changed. It's one of your responsibilities as a good Wikipedian editor to let that happen. This is the case even if the article is featured or celebrated in any official or unofficial way. --MalcolmGin 21:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank for the compliment and the recommendation. However, I have no problem with the article being edited or changed by new or old contributors as long as they respect the standard of a featured article I and others have sthrived to attain and maintain. --Loremaster 02:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you may wish to be more verbose about your reversions and edits, because, as should be clear to you by now, some of your reversions and edits seem unnecessary and ownership-behavior-related, so better explanations may help us all understand your editorial direction. --MalcolmGin 14:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have explained several times, all my reversions and edits were necessary and were not related to ownership-behavior. Futhermore, I have put a editorial direction guideline (which was actually written by Wikipedia administrator User:Metamagician3000) at the top this talk page and refered people to it when I made my reverts and edits. That being said, I will try to be more verbose since people since it seems that some new contributors don't seem to understand such a simple guideline. --Loremaster 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we understand the guideline as written; I, and apparently others, interpret your edits and the explanations thereof to mean something rather different, though.  I know I will never edit this page, lest you summarily revert because "the primary contributors" don't like what I've done.  And that seems to be what you want.  If that isn't in fact what you want, then you might examine your words and actions to find why I could come to such an erroneous conclusion. atakdoug 00:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care how one clumsly contributor, and two critics responding to an unnecessary netiquette alert, choose to misintepret my edits and explanations. As I said before, I don't summarily revert edits simply because I don't like them or because they don't come from me. Transhumanism is a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article, which has been peer-reviewed, and received both Good Article and Featured Article status due to its logic and quality. As long as new contributors respect that logic and quality, they will no problem from me. --Loremaster 18:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The lack of a source for the claim that the film Gattaca has been cited by critics is an oversight and I thank you for pointing that out. But if you look carefully, all the other additions pass the test. That being said, the article has evolved since I first added the original mention of the film Gattaca. My research has led me to discover that in fact the film has been cited by critics in their argument against the genetic divide that transhumanism could contribute to. Correct me if I am wrong but the same cannot be said of Harris Bergeron. Regardless, the criticisms section has a structure and style that should be taken into account when making new contributions, which you have failed to do. --Loremaster 18:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but when the Gattaca reference was first put in it didn't mention any critics citing it either so why must the Bergeron reference? I find it to be an interesting counterexample in fiction, whether it's been cited by critics or not is beside the point. And really, the basic point I'm trying to make here is not this one specific little bit of text but rather how it appears you responded to its addition. You didn't request a citation, reword the addition to try making it fit better, or address the issue on talk, you just blipped it away. It's not a very collaborative approach. I'll reword it and reincorporate it as an example of the sort of thing I'm suggesting doing instead. Bryan Derksen 04:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter that when the Gattaca reference was first put in it didn't mention any critics citing it! At the time, Transhumanism was neither a good or featured article. The reason it become one is, in part, because we improved it so that criticism section came to have a logic, structure and style. The criticisms section is about arguments against transhumanism (some of which are named after books or films which provide such arguments, and mention books or films which have been cited by critics making these arguments) while the Gattaca argument is specifically about an argument against libertarian transhumanism. Therefore, it is original research to mention Harris Bergeron as a counter-point to Gattaca when no critic of transhumanism has done so; and no transhumanist would mention it either in a counter-argument since it would obviously undermine it. Ultimately, the criticsms section isn't a showcase for books or films which depict anti-transhumanist or transhumanist scenarios. It's, in part, about the sources for arguments against transhumanism made by citable critics. In other words, not only should you provide a source which cites Harris Bergeron as a counter-point to Gattaca but you have to explain how Harris Bergeron supports a *transhumanist* counter-argument to the Gattaca argument. --Loremaster 23:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But who says that the criticisms section isn't a "showcase for books or films which depict anti-transhumanist or transhumanist scenarios"? The reason folks are complaining about Wikipedia:Ownership of articles issues here appears to be that you seem to have set yourself up as the gatekeeper who decides what should or should not be included in this article, and have stated outright (in #Last words? above) that you don't believe any major new additions should be made. Well, I happen to think that describing examples of various anti-transhumanist or transhumanist scenarios in fiction is an interesting and useful thing to do in an article such as this, and evidently so did User:Noclevername who originally added the Bergeron example. From my perspective you're the one who's harming the quality of the article by insisting on its removal like this. An article's "featured" status should not become an obstacle to continued evolution and improvement. Bryan Derksen 06:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why a tiny minority of people think that I have set myself up as the sole gatekeepeer of the Transhumanism article is because the other main contributors to this article have left when they felt the article was comprehensive. Futhermore, the reason why I put up those "last words" is because (Wikipedia administrator) Metamagician3000 asked me several times whether or not we should consider our work "complete" before he left. I was simply providing him with an answer despite the fact that I have continued to improve the article since then (thereby contradicting myself). That being said, see his own comments below. --Loremaster 19:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. By the way, Citizen Cyborg is the almost word-for-word source for the claim regarding the film Gattaca. --Loremaster 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, using Harrison Bergeron as a counterexample was OR on my part and should have been removed on that basis. Unfortunately, that point was not raised; the item was simply deleted and then I was insulted for having added it, which told me nothing about what was wrong with my edit. Noclevername 18:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I deleted the mention of Harrisson Bergeron, I recommended that you discuss and justify it on this talk page. Had you done this, I would have then raised all the points against it. My so-called insults, which were fair and accurate criticisms, came much later and in a different context. --Loremaster 20:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loremaster

message: I am reverting the addition of links and an image relating to UNICE: Universal Network of Intelligent Conscious Energy, a recreation of an article that was speedy deleted a year ago. Further reasons are described here, in a discussion regarding my reversion of UNICE information in the article Technological singularity. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNICE image 

message: Why does almost half of the article discuss various arguments against transhumanism? There is a lot of important content there, but it seems wildly excessive considering the Humanism, Rationalism, Dualism, Empiricism, Skepticism, Nihilism, Pessimism, Optimism and Monism articles all have no criticism section. Perhaps we could create a "Criticism of Transhumanism" page, with a short synopsis and a link on this page? 72.224.97.185 00:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why almost half of the article discuss various arguments against transhumanism is because transhumanism has attracted more outspoken critics than outspoken supporters. That being said, the transhumanist counter-arguments are ultimately arguments for transhumanism and therefore neutralize the POV factor of this section. Regardless, the comprehensiveness and style of the Criticism section is part of the reason why Transhumanism was considered one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. --Loremaster 09:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every single article I listed above has a long list of critics (including myself, for some of them), yet none of them have any "criticism" section at all. I agree that the section in question is well-written; however, I don't see why it can't be split off. Transhumanism is certainly long enough at 83 kb. 72.224.97.185 19:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care for the header of "Criticism" in an FA and think it should be retitled or removed if possible.  If such sections contain both the criticism and counter arguments (which they should for a high quality article), then such should not be labeled as crticism.  Each section can stand on its own as a section of Transhumanism with integrated criticism and rebuttal.  Such a section of arguments might have a title to group them but perhaps a better term could be used then "criticism" as this automaticly presents a POV.  See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure, Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, and Wikipedia:Criticism. As far as the list of critics (and I'm speaking without knowing them and without really reading through the material so forgive me if I off base), if they are significant enough to be mentioned here, then they should probably have thier own article, where their criticism and the rebuttal of the topic can be expanded and linked back to the main article.  If many critics make the same argument, then such is justified in having a section in this article with possible reference to the critics that make the argument. See WP:WEIGHT.  Morphh  (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the header of the criticisms section being changed to something more approppriate. However, I would strongly object to the section being split off for reasons I explained above but also because User:StN, one of the main contributors to the article,  would have permanently disputed the neutrality of this article if such a split-off was done... --Loremaster 19:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the header to "Controversy". Does anyone object? --Loremaster 20:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better, Thanks :-) Morphh  (talk) 2:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of transhumanism 

message: :ANY constructive edits are welcome on Wikipedia.  There is no need to verify edits with self-appointed "keepers" of articles.  Just provide citations, keep it NPOV, and you're fine.  Don't worry about any threats of reverting your edits, as other editors are watching for unwarranted reverts. Alvis 05:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that new contributors don't need to verify minor edits with the primary contributors to this article. I was only refering to major edits. That being said, the original version of the advice was written by Wikipedia administrator, Metamagician3000, the other so-called self-appointed "keeper" of the Transhumanism article. There are no threats of edit reversion in either version of this advice. Furthermore, none of my previous reverts were unwarranted as the conclusion to the debate regarding this issue has shown. --Loremaster 23:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPORTANT: Friendly advice to new contributors 

message: Re: the illustration at the top of the article (), where did this version come from? It appears to be a modified version of the original "Primo Posthuman" image, labeled "Trans-Post-Human" and "Primo Posthuman HUMAN 2." Yet it's not obvious on the credited artist's site; is this really a new version or some sort of hacked copy? The text isn't clear enough to read, either. --Kris Schnee 11:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a version created and uploaded by Natasha Vita-More herself. --Loremaster 16:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems that the original was restored. --Loremaster 13:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird. Was anyone able to figure out what the difference was? I couldn't read the text on the second version to tell. --Kris Schnee 00:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I haven't bothered to look into it. --Loremaster 00:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That isn't what NOR is about. Metamagician3000 03:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's O.R, and science fiction IS transhumanism. --Procrastinating@talk2me 17:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is placing an image of a well-known transhumanist artwork in the article on transhumanism engaging in original research? Answer, it isn't. It is verifiable that Natasha Vita-More is a transhumanist artist and that this is a well-known work by her. No one, by this action, is engaging in some research program of their own, either by adding unverifiable information or through a tendentious synthesis of cherry-picked bits of veriable information. Doing that is engaging in original research. Putting an image of an artwork by Natasha Vita-More in this article is nothing of the sort. Metamagician3000 04:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Metamagician3000. The image stays until someone can come up with a valid objection. --Loremaster 21:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image should be removed because of its amateurish quality.  If it stays it certainly should NOT be the first image anyone sees upon visiting this page.  It inherently makes the article less credible: "Smart skin" and "replacement organs" are uselessly vague terms, and "turbocharged" is an excruciatingly unscientific word.  "Error correction device?" "Biosensors?" This image would seem more at home in a primary school creative writing class than in an encyclopedia article, regardless of how speculative the article's subject may be.  Plus, it's not even punctuated properly! Unless someone can fix it to be more professional or argue in its favor with something less logically fallacious than "transhumanism IS science fiction," I'm going to remove it or switch it with something further down. Bumhoolery 06:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The Primo Posthuman image should be in the Fiction and Art section but I've moved back :Image:Converging technologies.png to the Theory and practice section. Let's find a way to resolve the copyright issues regarding the use of :Image:Posthuman Future.jpg in the Transhumanism article since it has become one of many icons symbolizing transhumanism. --Loremaster 17:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Loremaster 18:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Primo Posthuman

message: Hi, I wonder if we could add a little reference to Resident Evil in the Transhumanism#Dehumanization_.28Frankenstein_argument.29 section. --Andersmusician VOTE 04:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Andersmusician. Since we are trying to limit the size of the Controversy section, we should prefer only mentionning relatively great works of science fiction which academic critics of transhumanism have mentioned in their critique. --Loremaster 20:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resident Evil example 

message: With reference to our debate in Talk archive 13, I tried to include more of the reasoning by Fukuyama from his Foreign Policy comment. This part of his reasoning is more down-to-earth than the fear of master-slave races. It also lends itself more easily to a present-day informed debate, which must precede the "moral choice" in procreative liberty, referred to in the paragraph above my edit.
:As I and others have pointed out, the Controversy section (which has a structure and style which should be taken into account when adding or deleting content) tries to be a general overview of the arguments against and for transhumanism rather than an exhaustive debate which tries to settle an issue once and for all. Furthermore, this section is already unusually long by Wikipedian standards. It is for these reasons that I suggest that the content you want to add should be moved to the Human enhancement article, some of which already has. --Loremaster 22:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fukuyama section under "playing god" 

message: I wonder if the graphic novel Transmetropolitan should be referenced in this article. Fredsmith2 03:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we are trying to avoid expanding an article which is already too long, feel free to reference Transmetropolitan in the Transhumanism in fiction article. --Loremaster 16:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  transmetropolitan 

message: I think we make the Buchanan et al book sound more transhumanist that it really is. My understanding is that the authors would support what is ascribed to them in only a limited class of quite speculative cases. I want to think about this before making any changes, but just wanted to signal that it's on my mind. I notice that we don't give any page references for the fairly strong claim that we make about the book's content. Metamagician3000 13:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did think that some people might interpret this sentence in the way you have when I first wrote it but keep in mind I was practically quoting James Hughes' review of the book. --Loremaster 15:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Buchanan et al

message: This article comes across as an advertisement of transhumanism (similar to the articles on things such as polyamory), with the use of weasel words to manipulate the perception of how widespread the interest in such an idea really is. Who are these supposed 'many transhumanists'? Peoplesunionpro 19:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of the extensive Controversy section, which many pro-transhumanist users have complained about, the notion that this article is an "advertisement of transhumanism" is neither fair nor accurate. Regardless, I suggest you do research on the subject before dismissing it. --Loremaster 21:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment below. An article which is this long gives the subject matter the impression of importance even if it contains substantial criticisms. (Indeed, long lists of criticisms enhance the impression that transhumanism is widely discussed.) Ben Finn 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment below. That being said, although transhumanism is not always explicity mentioned when  transhumanist issues are discussed, transhumanist issues are in fact widely discussed. --Loremaster 01:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See below. Metamagician3000 03:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who are these 'transhumanists'? 

message: I appreciate the massive undertaking this article must have been, but as a pedestrian just passing by this page I have to say that the article seems a bit too dense. It's very rich with neologisms and jargon and requires an enormous amount of hyperlinks to explain those, these in my opinion make the article less accesible then it could be. I think it would be a more informative as well as enjoyable article if it would be somewhat more succinct.
Janbart 22:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The format and style of the Transhumanism article is a major part of the reason why it was identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community and therefore featured on the main page of Wikipedia. --Loremaster 23:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format and style could use some work 

message: Insofar as the cultural references go under the "Trivialization of human identity (Enough argument)" section, this may be a nitpick, but being more than well-versed in Japanese history, Tokugawa-era Japan was not technophobic at all, and should not be included alongside the Amish in this list (even if it is a citation from a book and not a supposition-based example to the wiki article itself). During the reign of Tokugawa Ieyasu, English sailor William Adams ended up as the only foreigner allowed inside the court, and was the Shogun's personal advisor for a time. In this period, he introduced many new technologies including spyglasses and shipbuilding into Japan, of which Tokugawa himself took great interest (Samurai William, 2002, Giles Milton, Penguin). The impetus of the Meiji Restoration, the Boshin War, etc, was largely a political thing, but also a bid for preservation of indigenous culture and national pride. Little, if any of it had to do with invention or augmentation of the nation due to technological advancement; with the exception of weapons (e.g. - the Howitzer). But again, a lot of this had to do with hard cultural traditions. A sword was believed to be the soul of the samurai, and with the revolution and prohibition of carrying swords, men that were once vital to the nation's stability and virility were now virtually an anachronism.
:In the counter-argument, it states: "Bailey also claims that McKibben's historical examples are flawed, and support different conclusions when studied more closely." --Loremaster 18:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tokugawa-era Japan was technophobic? 

message: The name 'Michael Anissimov' redirects to 'Transhumanism.' This seems odd; what's the connection? Somebody trying to make a point? Just curious. F4effort 00:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Michael Anissimov is a self-described transhumanist advocate well-know in some circles (You can learn more about him at http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/), such a redirect is inappropriate so it should be redirected to List of transhumanists instead. --Loremaster 15:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection