Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 9

message: There are too many science fiction images. Why didn't you use pictures of Natasha Vita More and of course Max More added in this article. I suggest that you get pictures of them. Christopher Sherman
:Christopher, as the Transhumanism article explains quite clearly, some of the most widely known ethical critiques of the transhumanist program are found in works of science fiction which, despite presenting imagined worlds rather than philosophical analyses, can be used as touchstones for some of the more formal arguments. This is the reason why there are many images of these works of science fiction in the article. However, only 4 out of 13 images in this article are so-called science fiction images. As far as pictures of Max More and Natasha Vita-More are concerned, we settled on only adding an image of FM-2030 because of his role as the father of transhumanism but also copyright issues. However, I have no problem with someone adding pictures of the Mores if this obstacle is resolved. --Loremaster 03:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/June_2006
Because of the controversial nature of Transhumanism, the article may be a target for vandalism around the time it is featured on the main page.  I wonder if it can be administratively locked between June 1-3.  Metamagician, can you do this?--StN 21:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The possibility of vandalism on the day Transhumanism is featured on the main page is something that I've anticipated since we first talked about improving the article to get featured article status. However, although I would love to be proven wrong, I doubt that a Wikipedia administrator will preemptively protect the page. Since Metamagician is not an administrator, I don't see what he can do beyond posting a request for page protection on the appropriate board, which is something you or I can do. --Loremaster 01:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loremaster--Metamagician has recently become an administrater--please check his user page.  Also, note that today's featured article, Tenebre, has been protected, at least for the day.--StN 02:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! You should use Metamagician's talk page to make sure he gets the message.  --Loremaster 02:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think semi-protection might be enough. Any vandalism is likely to come from anonymous editors rather than established wikipedians. Metamagician3000 01:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: N.B.  Please read the Featured Article Director's remarks on protection.  According to Talk:Tenebrae (film), Flcelloguy briefly protected the page to deal with a vandalbot.  I personally think this is a reasonable and justifiable course of action, but it's not something in which one indulges ahead of time.  And yes, I was on hand to see the lazy bastards scrawl obscenities all over Thomas Pynchon's article when it had its twenty-four hours in the Main Page sun, and to keep dragging the article back to high quality.  It's not a pleasant task to keep reverting, but there are generally multiple good Wikipedians falling over each other to revert Main Page FA vandalism, and hey, Wikipedia expects all good editors to do their duty. (-;  Anville 20:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've been asked not to semi-protect the article, after I raised the matter on the admins' noticeboard. As was pointed out to me - and Anville also points out - the main article is watched by lots of good wikipedians. I will, however, be vigilant about any acts of sabotage. Metamagician3000 00:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought as much. --Loremaster 00:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I also gave 86.133.14.127 a further warning. Any further sabotage edits should result in immediate blocking, either from me or any other admin you can find if I'm not available. Metamagician3000 00:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. --Loremaster 00:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter-vandalism 

message: This one of the best and most interesting articles I have yet seen, very clear, concise, and yet thorough. Good work to everyone involved! Jdcooper 00:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's the best Featured Article I've read.--Chris 00:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also concur. Congratulations to all the editors who created this article. It is really an outstanding FA. Bwithh 01:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WOW!! That is all I have to say, Great Article! I am learning so much. We need more articles like this as the featured article on wikipedia! (Cardsplayer4life 08:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations to all involved 

message: ::[Gregory Stock] believes that throughout the 21st century, many humans will find themselves deeply integrated into systems of machines, but will remain biological. Primary changes to their own form and character will arise not from cyberware but from the direct manipulation of their genetics, metabolism, and biochemistry.
Is this really a criticism of Transhumanism or just naive interpretations of transhumanism? You could still be a transhumanist and think that the way it will probably be implemented is through biological manipulation right (I'm sure many transhumanists do)? It just seems to me like its not really a criticism of transhumanism, just one (naive) interpretation of it. --Brentt 01:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And this would be your inpretation of an interpretation... --Loremaster 18:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biological Vs. Non-Biological

message: I am deleting the following text for now: "Luciferism, an atheist political philosophy synthesizing satanism and transhumanism." I am unable to find any reputable source that verifies any connection between "Luciferism" and transhumanism. Anyone who can source this feel welcome to do so. Metamagician3000 08:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Loremaster 18:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Luciferism

message: To history section:
Russian cosmism is a philosophical and cultural movement that emerged in Russia in the early 20th century.
Ideas: radical life extension using scientific methods, human immortality, resurrection of dead people, space colonization, noosphere.
Despite similarities, I know of no transhumanist philosopher that acknowledges Russian cosmism as a forebearer of transhumanism. --Loremaster 18:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, one of us needs to write a scholarly article pointing out the similarities (and thus "advancing the state of knowledge" by padding our curricula vitae).  Nyet?  (-;  Anville 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Loremaster 18:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Russian cosmism]]

message: this article is good.
:Maybe it should be protected at least for today... NCurse work 09:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Please see above. Bishonen | talk 09:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: good article

message: Can someone slip in a reference to the Borg from Star Trek. As I see it, they're supposed to represent transhumanism gone wrong. Black-Velvet 16:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the No Original Research policy, we can't say that unless somebody else who is not a Wikipedian writing on a Talk page has said it first.  Besides which, unless the external sources we found indicated that the Borg were really important to this argument, such a mention of them would properly belong in the Transhumanism in fiction article.  And now that I look, it's already there—but it doesn't have a footnote, so we should fix that.  Anville 17:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Anville. --Loremaster 17:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Kit Pedler and the cybermen were there first! --Artw 20:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephen Byerley was imagined in 1946.  Relevant?  That's for Original Research to decide.  Anville 20:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Borg 

message: At present five of the criticisms are labelled with science fiction titles and one uses a book title rather than a descriptor, which seems inappropriately trivializing, focuses attention entirely on derivative/related works of fiction rather than the ideas behind the criticisms, and is often not entirely accurate. 
"Playing God argument" should be split in two - "Theological criticism" and "Medical Ethics."  The two arguments are very different from each other - the one draws on theological morals, while the other is based in questions of acceptable risk to an uninformed participant.
"Enough argument" would be better titled "Human Identity" or the like. 
"Gattaca argument" could be better titled using a term found in the text body itself, "Biotech Divide," or "Social Stratification."  
"Terminator argument" is just silly and trivializing - heck, we could at least make it "The Matrix argument," if we have to go movies.  A better heading might be "Fears of Catastrophy" etc.
"Brave New World" is a bit better, but "Social order argument" might be better, as Brave New World contains elements of social stratification and destruction-of-the-individual as well - the harm to the indivdual, in fact, might be an even stronger theme in the book.
"Frankenstein" should be "Dehumanization" or such, and the line about critics "citing" Frankenstein should probably be reworded or removed - when it is mentioned, in my experience, it is in the casual use, i.e. refering to any meddling with life, creation of new creatures, rather than as a (shudder) support.  
"Eugenics Wars" argument should be simply "Eugenics."
The continued referencing of science fiction as the base of or entirety of criticism of transhumanism is inaccurate and seems designed to trivialize the arguments of critics; transhumanism has created concerns which INSPIRE science fiction, rather than science fiction inspiring concerns about transhumanism.  One might change refernces to "These concerns about XXXXX were the inspiration behind YYYYYY."
I'm not making these changes myself, 'cause I don't generally hang around here.  I'll leave it to established members.  -Akio
:I too found the headings unusually unhelpful.  Only after reading the sections could I look back and figure out what the heading meant, and even then, they didn't serve to identify the core idea (obviously they couldn't if one is unfamiliar with the work), and thus help organize my understanding of the article.
:Rather than breaking the SF theme, perhaps simply extending the headings would help.
::Futurehype argument - predictions are inaccurate 
::Playing God argument - theology
::Playing God argument - medical ethics
::Enough argument - limitations are important
::Brave New World argument - society is changed
::Gattaca argument - only for the rich
::Frankenstein argument - subhumans
::Eugenics Wars argument - conflict and genocide
::Terminator argument - disaster
:I've reordered these: Futurehype - God - God - Enough - Brave New World - Gattaca - Frankenstein - Eugenics - Terminator.  So it's: core assumptions; ethics, ethics; can being-human exist in that environment; can society, and would we like it; three kinds of societal risks; disaster risks in general.
:Are the Practical vs Ethical sections an artifact of earlier drafts?  There is only one entry under Practical, and many of the critcisms under Ethical are practical (as defined the likelihood of transhumanist goals being achieved vs moral principles).  Perhaps the Practical/Ethical headings should be removed?  Though there is still a distinction between Futurehype and the rest.  Futurehype is something like is this discussion of transhumanism asking the right questions / discussing the right technology evolution senario.
:I too will defer any changes to locals, and a time when the article is off the front page.
::I strongly disagree. I reverted these changes (made by StN) because of the damage this is creating to both the article and others that are linking to it (using the previous criticism headings). I will provide further explanation for this judgement tomorrow morning at the latest. --Loremaster 17:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, I've combined both the previous and new headings. As for the reordering, I think this might be a good idea. What do the rest of you think? --Loremaster 14:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms Headings

message: As StN laconically puts it, "Hey Anville, transhumanism is hardly quantum mechanics."  No joke—I think that's pretty obvious, and it's not just because the math is harder.  In my judgment, which is of course the auric standard of all judgments, the separation between what H+ considers serious academic discourse and total body-loathing fluffery is far, far narrower than the distance between quantum field theory and the "vibrate your aura at a higher harmonic resonance" mumbo-jumbo.  The uncritical acceptance of non-scientific notions like Kurzweil's "Law of Accelerating Returns" by people who are supposedly dedicated to using the fruits of science to improve the human lot makes my mind, well, boggle.
I met Kurzweil once, at a panel discussion a few years back where he and a few other inventor-types debated issues discussed in a book they had all co-authored called Inventing Modern America.    (I was actually hoping to meet James Burke, who had written the introduction, but he was off traveling the planet and finding connections between exotic things.)  All the panelists struck me as bright people with considerable doses of ability and optimism, though Douglas Engelbart was the only one who really appeared to have his feet planted pragmatically on the ground, who had a real grasp on issues and how to make good things happen.  A friend of mine, a very smart fellow who worked in the MIT Media Lab designing artificially intelligent kitchen appliances until he could stand it no more, was also in the audience, and his impressions agreed with mine.  (Some months later, we got started talking about it in the company of the young woman he was impressing at the time.  He mentioned his approval of Engelbart's attitude, and then said, "Steve Wozniak looked like your friend's dad."
"Which friend?" the young woman asked.
"No, in general, your friend's dad:  you know, the guy in the sweater vest who always says stuff like, 'Who made this music?  It's got a great beat!'")
So, overall, I concluded that the ability to invent one or two cool things does not necessarily translate to an understanding of scientific methods or the way things work in general.  For example, I have yet to see a graph come out of Kurzweil's graphic-design factory with error bars, and in all the verbiage about how much Moore's Law means to our future, the words "null hypothesis" are conspicuously absent.  (Moore's Law is great:  it even applies to razor blades.)  I would suppose that in the investigation of our species's future and indeed the definition of humanity itself the investigators would hold themselves to the highest possible standard of scientific rigor, but such has not been the case.
Once I'm done with Science for the Pynchon Lover, I think I'll write a book entitled Transhumanism, Pseudoscience and Science Fiction.  (Well, if I think up a cool classical allusion for the title itself, that might be the subtitle.)  This would also offer the happy opportunity to geek over some great SF books and not just repeat the geeking others have done before me.  After more than five kilo-edits as a Wikipede, one does get the desire to create something a little more permanent and a little more like Research with a capital R.  Who's in with me?  It'll be a great chance to put the good arguments invented in the Talk namespace on paper for the next generation of Wikipedians to cite.
Rambling the afternoon away, Anville 22:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anville, you are free to write a critique of transhumanism but you should know that 1) although he is a proud Singularitarian, Ray Kurzweil does not consider himself a transhumanist; 2) despite appreciating the fact that Kurzweil is probably the person most responsible for spreading so-called transhumanist ideas into the mainstream, many transhumanist thinkers I have contacted tell me that they are trying to distance their views (which focus on the ethical and responsible development and use of emerging technologies) from those of Kurzweil which they judged to be too much futurehype. --Loremaster 23:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict with StN) Well, see, that's the sort of thing which should be written down—does the written word record what the thinkers you have contacted said via personal communication?  (That's an honest question, not a rhetorical one.  In bits and pieces, I'm sure it does.)  Besides, to elaborate on my vague notion for a book, I doubt it could be a critique of the entire "movement".  My goal, insofar as my biases have shaped me, would be to separate out the meretorious from the meretricious.  There looks to be plenty of both to go around.  Anville 23:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, I didn't save any of the emailed conversations. --Loremaster 23:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the book is a very interesting idea, Anville. In the shorter term, however, it would be good if you could add some NPOV text informed by your perspective to the "Futurehype argument" section.--StN 23:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll see how much I can generate without letting it become too Original.  Anville 23:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hardly quantum mechanics" 

message: The article calls Theodore Kaczynski an "avowed neo-luddite zealot". Could this phrase be gotten rid of altogether?
Despite the negative associations with the word, I guess you really could classify him as a "neo-Luddite". However, adding "avowed" and "zealot" to the description just seems to be meant to add judgmental and non-neutral terms to the description in order to devalue Kaczynski's position. These words aren't conveying any additional information. Even if he has publicly avowed himself to be a "zealot" (and there is no footnote here stating where he was quoted as "avowing" himself one), I'd hold that there is too much of a negative connotation.
This might be acceptable in an article outlining criticisms of Kaczynski's beliefs, but I think it is unacceptably non-neutral here. In a section on criticisms of transhumanism, Kaczynski's criticism (which isn't even being described in this article, and that looks lazy in itself) probably shouldn't be demeaned right at the start with this non-neutral language.
As well, go click on "zealot": it's an article mainly on the ancient jewish zealot movement, only periphally referring to the word's new and more general application, and the article has a neutrality warning. Now go click on "neo-Luddite": this article also has a neutrality warning. Using two words with neutrality warnings to refer to Kaczynski should be a good enough sign that the language describing him is unacceptably non-neutral.
Also, regarding Kalle Lasn: is there a reason that "culture jammer" is put in quotes here? Are the quotes suggesting that he isn't really a culture jammer, or just that he invented a term to refer to himself?
207.34.120.71 13:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced "avowed neo-luddite zealot" with "neo-luddite terrorist". --Loremaster 13:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Terrorist", of course, is not at all a loaded word, and Wikipedia articles on terrorism have never had neutrality issues. . . .  Does finding neutral descriptors for mass murderers ever seem like an exercise in futility politics to anybody else?  Anville 14:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New text: Related notions were voiced earlier by Theodore Kaczynski (the Unabomber), a convicted terrorist with an anarcho-primitivist agenda, and Kalle Lasn, a culture jammer with neo-luddite views, who claimed that humanity has an inherent lack of competence to direct its own evolution and should therefore completely relinquish technology development. --Loremaster 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaczynski: "zealot"? 

message: Hi, I hope you don't mind my stating this and please take it as a suggetion for authenticity, rather than a criticism.
In deference to FM-2030, he would not be happy about revealing his age, birthplace and ethnic background, especially stating he was an "Iranian-American." And importantly, FM was not the father of transhumanism, his philosophical movement was "UpWingers" and he was indeed the father of the "transhuman." He did not fully support "transhuman" as a movement, which we strongly disagreed on.  Max More is the accurate father of transhumanism, or as those who want to be politically-correct say modern transhumanism, but I truly believe that this is a low blow to Dr. More.
The image of FM which you are using is one he loved and I believe he would give you his full permission to use it. But that is not my call. If you are concerned about this, I have a picture that you can use.  (Please email me privately, natasha@natasha.cc) 
Thanks for the great work and I hope you see my comments are a desire to help preserve transhumanism's history.
Best wishes, Natasha Vita-More
:Mrs Vita-More, the notion that an encyclopedic biographical article should not reveal the age, birthplace or ethnic background of a public figure because it makes him unhappy is ridiculous. However, the ethnic backrgound of FM-2030 will be deleted from the Transhumanism article since it is unnecessary. I will also edit the caption under the image of FM-2030 according to the facts that you pointed out. --Loremaster 22:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your very courteous observations, Natasha. It's true that an objective encyclopedia can't very well suppress things such as someone's age (as opposed to their precise date of birth). Your comments are welcome, though. I'll go and have a look at what Loremaster has done with them. Metamagician3000 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FM-2030