Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 12

message: #How significant was and is John Spencer (the advocate of space tourism) to the history of transhumanism?
#Did and does he consider himself a transhuman/transhumanist?
#What citable sources confirm his role in the history of transhumanism? Does Edward Regis mention him in his book?
--Loremaster 02:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no entry for him in the index of the Regis book - just checked. Metamagician3000 01:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Does anyone know of any source that confirms Spencer's role in transhumanist history? --Loremaster 23:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll email someone who might know someone who might know someone... --Loremaster 00:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: On the basis of this, it doesn't seem to me that John Spencer is a transhumanist any more than Richard Branson is. Just a friend of transhumanists.--StN 23:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with this. Natasha's info is useful and interesting, but I can't immediately see how it leads to anything that we need to say in this particular article. There may be an article about space advocacy or something where Wikipedia could make better use of it. Metamagician3000 23:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is whether or not we should delete the mention of John Spencer from the History section of the article? --Loremaster 11:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not uncomfortable with what's there at the moment, which just mentions him as part of a general "buzz", at a place and time, from which transhumanism as we know it developed. Metamagician3000 12:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed any mention of John Spencer from the Transhumanism article. --Loremaster 13:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, no objection from me. Metamagician3000 14:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Spencer

message: StN, have you read Hughes' book? --Loremaster 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have; I think you asked me this before.  It took a little time since my patience runs out when someone has to resort to name-calling so as not to engage the positions of people he disagrees with.  To my mind, it's standard liberal meliorism, not very astute politically, and without much of a sense of history.  I agree with the parts about making technology more widely available, though I would focus more on clean water and healthful food.  I would also want to reverse some of the marvels of technology, like high fructose soft drinks (India is now experiencing the benefits of this) and cattle pastures supplanting South American rain forests.  I wouldn't place cloning and germline-engineering humans high on the "to do" list.--StN 04:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a self-described provocateur, Hughes makes no apologies for resorting to name-calling since he does it while engaging the positions of the people he disagrees with quite consicely or extensively. As for the issue of focusing on the problem of high fructose soft drinks rather than human genetic engineering, he ties them together. From p.19-20: "Critser recommends restricting advertising that targets kids, removing fast food and soda from schools, expanding physical education requirements in schools, and insituting a fat tax on unhealthy foods. All good ideas, and corporations are certainly eager to make profits by first helping us kill ourselves and then by fixing us back up. But the basic cause of obesity is that we have bodies designed to spend hours walking around the savanna every day, and brains that find easy access to fats, sugars and carbohydrates irresistible. Only safe and cheap genetic and pharmaceutical therapies can successfully stop the deadly world-wide rise of obesity." As for the problem of cattle pastures, meat grow in vats that even a vegetarian could endorse! --Loremaster 23:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, genetically engineer human embryos and medicate children to prevent obesity, which the human species began to suffer in 1970 (beginning with the U.S.A.), once it realized, after a 50,000 year delay, that it was no longer running around in the savannah.  Pretty smart.  I must have missed this part.--StN 00:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hughes wasn't talking about genetically engineering human embryos or medicating children. He was refering to fact that for adults "more than sixty pharmaceutical treatments to alter metabolism or reduce appetite are being developed, based on more than 130 genes that been discovered to regulate weight in humans. The gene or drug tweaks that keep us slim will likely be much simpler, modifying just one of those chemical pathways". As for the savannah comment, I neglected to quote the part where Hughes pointed out that beyond new food technologies, industrial society is also to blame for the obesity epidemic because it allowed us to become less active and encouraged more sedentary entertainment. --Loremaster 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are "gene tweaks"?  Are they somatic gene insertions or germline modifications?  If the former, what is the target tissue, fat, which would be genetically programmed to melt away?  I'm not ridiculing this, just asking, because if so, the genetic engineering would have to be very efficient to affect significant amounts of fat in the adult body.  Also, fat, being lipid-rich, with little cytoplasm, would be very hard to engineer.  Is there another somatic tissue that would be more suitable for engineering to reverse obesity?  (Maybe the brain?  Again, just asking.)  Or maybe it *is* germline intervention that he is referring to.  This would be a lot easier technically.  Embryo transgenesis is more efficient, and the modification is much more likely to have a pervasive effect.  Also, it would persist across generations.  Embryo modification has its own risks of course -- developmental defects, shortened lifespan, etc.  And you really wouldn't know ahead of time whether the particular embryo you are experimenting on would actually have turned out to be obese as a child or adult.  I forget whether Hughes discusses these questions beyond saying that the gene tweaks woud be "simpler", but I don't think so.  (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)  This is unfortunately the case with a lot of bioethicists who discuss genetic technologies.  They don't really understand them that well, but nonetheless think they are really cool.--StN 01:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is even worse than I thought.  Just the characterization of the role of SCD-1 is so full of scientific oversimplications, as you can determine by consulting PubMed, that one doesn't know where to begin.  And if you have trouble understanding the science, I can assure you that Hughes doesn't understand it either.  Indeed, from the most recent papers you can see just from internal evidence in the summaries that even the scientists acknowledge that the SCD protein has multiple effects, some health enhancing and some health impairing.  I don't think you would like to have your own SCD-1 gene snipped out.  Though it seems that you, Loremaster (I know, your opinion is not at issue here, but you seem to be a big Hughes fan), and Hughes and other transhumanists, would like to see people exercise their "right" to genetically engineer their offspring so as to "tweak" SCD-1 after being empowered by reading Hughes's book, including his "provocational" dismissal of "bio-luddites", some of whom actually understand the complexities of the science.  And by the way, what does Moore's Law have to do with the functioning of the human genome?  Please forgive me, but what a load of crap!--StN 18:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I am aware that I may seem like one, I am actually not a "big Hughes fan". Since Hughes is one of the select few transhumanists who have taken the time to provide serious answers to most ethical and social issues related to human enhancement technologies, he deserves to be heard. However, I strongly disagree with him on many issues such as uplifting animals. By the way, you should know that I am only pitting you against him to learn from you both in order to possibly improve the article. ;) --Loremaster 01:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you at least acknowledge now, Loremaster, that Hughes *was* talking about genetically engineering human embryos and medicating children (vis-a-vis obesity)?--StN 18:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, since te next paragraph in the book makes it clear he was refering to somatic for adults. --Loremaster 01:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This won't work for obesity-related genes, for reasons given above.  It also seems from what you have provided that Hughes is advocating moving to experimental human germline manipulation for offspring of people who have certain genetic conditions.  In any case, I appreciate your collegial remarks.--StN 01:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hughes is not advocating moving to experimental human germline manipulation any time soon. In a chapter unrelated to the obesity question, he was talking about what he thinks might be appropriate in a few decades. That being said, whether or not you are right about obesity-related genes, Hughes argues that obesity is far older than 1970 and that we are getting fatter because people everywhere use far fewer calories in movement than our ancestors, and have access to far more food. No program of diet and exercise has stemmed the tide of obesity. The UN just acknowledged that there are now more obese people in the world than malnourished ones. Since the tendency towards obesity is on a bell curve and genetically inheritable, then it makes sense for some part of the population to change their metabolism genes. For others it would probably make more sense to use drugs or nano-neural machinery to modulate metabolism or appetite. That would allow more finetuning. Some people don't need finetuning, however, just better genes. --Loremaster 13:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Some people don't need finetuning, however, just better genes."  Too bad this isn't published.  It would be a great quote to use in Eugenics Wars argument (specter of old eugenics)!--StN 19:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be extremely unfair and inaccurate since we are not discussing coercive eugenics, selective human breeding or forced sterilization. --Loremaster 23:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but I have to laugh when I see claims that Hughes is provocative. Any provocation pales into insignificance compared with the rhetoric used by the other side. Compared to Leon Kass, Hughes is a model of cool analytical reason. Likewise when you compare him with the self-congratulatory rhetoric that emerges from the Center for Genetics and Social Responsibility, or whatever it's called. When I saw Annas and his team in action at the World Bioethics Congress a couple of years back I was genuinely shocked at the self-importance and arrogance that they displayed in the way they treated any whisper of dissent. Really, it'd be nice if someone would just analyse the issues in a calm, philosophical way, but James Hughes is far from being the worst - in fact, having also seen him in action,and having read much of his work, I think he's about the best. Metamagician3000 23:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I don't know what any of this has to do with writing a Wikipedia article. Metamagician3000 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "Provocateur" was a term Loremaster used to describe Hughes, which he asserted was the way that Hughes sees himself.  None of what Metamagician has said in this last post bears on the question of whether Hughes understands the science.  Annas, in fact, writes a long-standing column for the New England Journal of Medicine, whose editors and readers are not averse to medical science and its applications.  I don't agree that this has nothing to do with transhumanism, the subject of this Wikipedia article, and therefore how the subject is presented, but I will be happy not to continue hashing it out ad nauseam in this forum.--StN 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Books

message: I just clicked on the last refrnece, and was shocked to find that it lead to a porn site.  Someone please fix this before I vomit at the intergrity of this.  Tobyk777 05:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The last reference leads to a porn site!!

message: The Matrix is mentioned as a transhumanist film. I'm looking to gain a fuller understanding of transhumanism ideals - what aspects of it are transhumanist (ie what characters, and how)? I guess every human is transhumanist, because of the way they've been altered? Or would it be more specific things, like the ability to upload fighting skills to their brains that represent transhumanist ideals? Thanks, --219.88.174.179 03:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Transhumanism article. --Loremaster 17:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Captain Obvious! I've removed that reference from the article, as it doesn't seem to be substantiated (I guess the movie isn't really transhumanist) - something you'll note by its absence from the "transhumanism in fiction" article. If I'm wrong, feel free to replace it and indicate why here. --219.88.174.179 20:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transhumanism in The Matrix 

message: :In 1986, Eric Drexler published Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology,Drexler 1986 which discussed the prospects for nanotechnology and molecular assemblers, and founded the Foresight Institute. As the first nonprofit company to research, advocate for, and perform cryonics, the Southern California offices of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation became a nexus for futurists. Not all these activities were explicitly concerned with "transhumanism", but some of the involved individuals eventually had a pioneering role in the movement.Bostrom 2005
# Has Drexler ever identified himself or his work as transhumanist?
# Although Alcor became a nexus for futurists, was it a nexus for transhumanists?
# What are activities explicitly concerned with transhumanism?
# Who are these individuals who eventually had a pioneering role in the movement?
--Loremaster 14:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never come across a connection between Drexler and transhumanism, though transhumanists have taken up nanotechnology. The rest is vague, and can all go as far as I'm concerned, unless documentation emerges in the next two weeks.--StN 20:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression is that Drexler does sometimes hang around at transhumanist conferences and so on, so he has associated himself to an extent with the transhumanist movement (which of course is not the same as saying he identifies himself as a transhumanist). All that is just a vague impression that I have, and which may be wrong. I didn't write that material (though I may have worked on it for style, etc., from time to time), so I don't know what the author had in mind. It may have come from George Dvorsky way back when the article was first written. It still seems to me as if it's probably about right, and it's never been queried by people like Natasha who we know have looked at the article - but I can't provide you with sources. Metamagician3000 00:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bostrom mentions Drexler and his work in his essay on the history of transhumanist thought while Hughes also mentions him in Citizen Cyborg. However, I still question whether or not Drexler and his work should be identified as transhumanistic even if it technically is. Any thoughts? --Loremaster 00:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we simply need to explain how the work Drexler and Alcor contributed to the the transhumanist movement and/or theory. --Loremaster 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we should include it. Drexler's work on nanotech, even just the theory of it, is integral to transhumanism, since it offers a plausible mechanism for many of the technological advances that a lot depends on (ie. like how computers can increase in power sufficiently to support uploads). --maru   (talk)  contribs 19:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A new version of this text much explained how Drexlerian nanotechnology and Alcor cryonics directly contributed to the formation of transhumanist thought and/or movement. --Loremaster 01:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loremaster, "must explain", right?--StN 19:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. --Loremaster 14:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drexler  and Alcor 

message: In response to Loremaster, StN, and Metamagician3000: Please find below my proposed additions and modifications. I have marked them with ">>>>>>", being ignorant of any other ways to do this in Wikipedia - sorry for any inconveniences. I have not added the references yet, because I would first like to know whether the modifications and additions are okay for you (including the English). I would strongly recommend that in the "Criticisms" section the formal arguments are mentioned before the references to fictional arguments, because often the critics discussed in these paragraphs have never used references to fictional scenarios. I'm afraid, the "amount" of criticism is even larger now, but the reason for this is in my view to be found in the structure of the "Criticism" section: When taking a close look at the various "fictional arguments", one realizes that they strongly overlap. I have tried to indicate this to the reader with a couple of cross-references and would, although it makes the article probably a little bit clumsy, propose to add some other cross references in the paragraphs I haven't modified ("Eugenics", "Trivialization", and maybe "Dehumanization"). If you really want to make the "Criticism" less "bulky", I would still think that the existing structure, with the references to fictional scenarios, is not helpful (besides that it obfuscates the arguments of the critics). I think it would be possible to regroup and shorten the section, because the various critics have many common points of critique and focus. Five paragraphs would in my view be enough: threat to democracy and equality; hubris/playing God; contempt for the flesh; Terminator and infeasibility - genetic engineering and eugenics are not specifically transhumanist and could be integrated in other paragraphs) .--Bureb62 18:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals 

message: While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply reason, science and technology for the purposes of reducing poverty, disease, disability and malnutrition around the globe, transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual level. Many transhumanists actively assess the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve the quality of all life, while seeking to make the material reality of the human condition fulfill the promise of legal and political equality by eliminating congenital mental and physical barriers.
Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists an ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a post-Darwinian phase of existence, in which humans are in control of their own evolution. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate change. To this end, transhumanists engage in interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and evaluating possibilities for overcoming biological limitations. They draw on futures studies and various fields or subfields of science, philosophy, economics, history, and sociology. Unlike philosophers, social critics and activists who place a moral value on preservation of natural systems, transhumanists see the very concept of the "natural" as an obstacle to progress.  In keeping with this, many prominent transhumanist advocates refer to transhumanism's critics on the political right and left jointly as "bioconservatives" or "bioluddites", the latter term alluding to the nineteenth century anti-industrialisation social movement that opposed the replacement of manual labor by machines.
While some transhumanists take a relatively abstract and theoretical approach to the perceived benefits of emerging technologies, others have offered specific proposals for modifications to the human body, including inheritable ones. Transhumanists are often concerned with methods of enhancing the human nervous system. Though some propose modification of the peripheral nervous system, the brain is considered the common denominator of personhood and is thus a primary focus of transhumanist ambitions. More generally, transhumanists support the convergence of emerging technologies such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC), and hypothetical future technologies such as simulated reality, artificial intelligence, mind uploading, and cryonics. Transhumanists believe that humans can and should use these technologies to become more than human. Transhumanists therefore support the recognition or protection of cognitive liberty, morphological freedom and procreative liberty as civil liberties, so as to guarantee individuals the choice of enhancing themselves and progressively become posthuman, which they see as the next significant evolutionary steps for the human species. Some speculate that human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies may facilitate such a transformation by the midpoint of the twenty first century.
A 2002 report, Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance, commissioned by the U.S. National Science Foundation and Department of Commerce, 
>>>>>>but not an official document of the US government,
:Unnecessary comment. --Loremaster 18:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?--Bureb62 19:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is arguing that it is an official document of the US government. --Loremaster 19:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The critique doesnt need to be mentioned in this section. However, we can provide a link to the paper the BRS & RAE wrote. --Loremaster 18:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If "major contributors to these fields" are mentioned, a reader may be interested that large parts of this report are often seen as unscientific. There is also a wide range of other critics of this report, including some NGOs and Kass and his colleagues, and if it is quoted so visibly (with the picture) as a source for "theory and practice" of transhumanism, this context is quite important.--Bureb62 19:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I think the sentence "including critiques of the transhumanist orientation of some of the NBIC visions" provides enough context. If readers want more, they can simply read the sources of these critiques. --Loremaster 19:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory and practice

message: Although some transhumanists report a strong sense of spirituality, they are for the most part secular. In fact, many transhumanists are either agnostics or atheists. A minority, however, follow liberal forms of Eastern philosophical traditions or, as with Mormon transhumanists, have merged their beliefs with established religions.
Despite the prevailing secular attitude, some transhumanists pursue hopes traditionally espoused by religions, such as immortality albeit a physical one. Several belief systems, termed new religious movements, originating in the late twentieth century, share with transhumanism the goals of transcending the human condition by applying technology to the alteration of the body (Raëlism) and mind (Scientology). While most thinkers associated with the transhumanist movement focus on the practical goals of using technology to help achieve longer and healthier lives, some speculate that future understanding of neurotheology will enable humans to achieve control of altered states of consciousness and thus "spiritual" experiences.  A continuing dialogue between transhumanism and faith was the focus of an academic seminar held at the University of Toronto in 2004.
The majority of transhumanists are materialists who do not believe in a transcendent human soul. Transhumanist personhood theory also argues against the unique identification of moral actors and subjects with biological humans, judging as speciesist the exclusion of nonhuman and part-human animals, and sophisticated machines, from ethical consideration. Many believe in the compatibility of human minds with computer hardware, with the theoretical implication that human consciousness may someday be transferred to alternative media. 
>>>>>>This idea and the underlying assumptions are criticised by a wide range of scholars, scientists and activists, sometimes with regard to transhumanism itself, sometimes with regard to thinkers such as Marvin Minsky or Hans Moravec who are often seen as its mentors. From Christian perspectives this idea appears to indicate a disregard for the human body that they see as characteristic for Gnostic belief, and antithetical to Christianity. The interpretation of transhumanism or its supposed mentors as neo-Gnostic was also brought forward by several non-Christian and secular intellectuals. Relating the idea, for example, to the legacy of cybernetics, some have argued that this materialist dream results in a new spiritualism.
:We need to cite sources before inserting a paragraph like this. --Loremaster 18:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could give sources for all the modifications and additions, but I wanted to ask you, as the main editors, first, whether my proposed modifications/additions are okay in your view.--Bureb62 19:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most are. I've already edited the article to include the majority. --Loremaster 19:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spirituality

message: From Existential risks (Terminator argument):
:Related notions are also voiced by self-described neo-luddite Kalle Lasn, a culture jammer who co-authored a spoof of the Cyborg Manifesto as a critique of techno-utopianism, who claims that humanity has an inherent lack of competence to direct its own evolution and should therefore completely relinquish technology development.
Can we cite this Changesurfer radio interview of Kalle Lasn by James Hughes for this passage? http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=11260 If so, how do we? --Loremaster 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Related notions are also voiced by self-described neo-luddite Kalle Lasn, a culture jammer who co-authored a 2001 spoof of Donna Haraway's 1985 Cyborg Manifesto as a critique of techno-utopianism, who argues that technology development should be completely relinquished since it inevitably serves corporate interests with devastating consequences on society and the environment.
--Loremaster 16:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed 

message: Great link to update the Fiction and Art section: http://genetics-and-society.org/analysis/popular.html --Loremaster 14:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do some of you feel that the Fiction and Art section needs to be improved/trimmed/expanded? For example, some readers have commented in that past that they were surprised that the works of Robert A. Heinlein (Lazarus Long series, 1941-1987), A. E. van Vogt ( Slan, 1946), Isaac Asimov ( I, Robot, 1950), and Arthur C. Clarke ( Childhood's End , 1953), and Stanislaw Lem ( Cyberiad, 1967) are not mentioned in the article when they have hade far more influence on proto-transhumanist thought than the works by other authors currently mentioned. --Loremaster 21:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel so (Heinlein and Clarke in specific).--Bureb62 08:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. However, since I am in a hurry, someone else can rephrase the context. --Loremaster 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One can always count on StN for this stuff. Thank you. --Loremaster 17:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The effect of Michael Jackson's skin lightening on his aritstic persona, which is widely acknowledged, rather than the initial medical motivation, which is discussed in the article about him, is what is at issue in this passage.--StN 17:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Loremaster 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. However, I've removed Warhammer to give more space for Shadow Run which I think is a more significant work. --Loremaster 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction and Art 

message: What do people think about eliminating one section by transferring the two paragraphs of the Eugenics Wars argument to the end of the Gattaca argument?--StN 02:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been weighing the pros and cons of doing that for a while now. Let's wait till Metamagician comes back on December 15 to have his input. --Loremaster 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm currently leaning against consolidation. I think we should simply make clear that the Gattaca argument is about the consequences of elective eugenics while the Eugenics Wars argument is about the consequences of a return of coercive eugenics; as I am currently doing. --Loremaster 18:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done. StN, what do you think? --Loremaster 20:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is better now and we can leave it in two sections. --StN 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidation? 

message: On another issue, do you really think a citation is needed for the statement on Minsky, Moravec and Kurzweil?  It is a noncontroversial statement of fact based on their own writings.--StN 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me the issue isn't one of controversy as much as it is about helping people know which writings of Minsky, Moravec and Kurzweil were are refering to. --Loremaster 19:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you take care of it? --Loremaster 20:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've begun and will do the rest soon.--StN 20:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --Loremaster 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed?

message: I removed what I consider a really misleading reference to Carl Sagan, Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins and Douglas Hofstadter "paving the way for public understanding of transhumanist ideas."  This seemed to be a surreptitious way of suggesting that these scientists and writers endorse transhumanism.  In fact no documentation is provided that they even wrote about transhumanist ideas.--StN 00:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I could debate this, I won't restore the reference unless someone else can convincingly argue for it. --Loremaster 02:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It strikes me as original research. Metamagician3000 10:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paving the way 

message: In the Frankenstein argument section, I've replaced Mary Shelley's picture with one of a human-dog hybrid family. --Loremaster 23:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Young Family" illustration is ideal for this section, but since the article is not about this work, or even about the artist who produced it, the image fails the fair use test in my opinion.--StN 02:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I know. I am working on finding the appropriate license and adding a good fair use rationale. --Loremaster 08:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't the image used for the Frankenstein section a bit disturbing? Can we change it please? Keshidragon 14:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL No, that's the point. --Loremaster 19:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Based on a read-through of her website, it appears that Transhumanism and Genetic Engineering are among her primary themes, so I believe that the picture passes the fair-use test.  Here's a quote from her earlier work: "The work presented comes from my on-going 'The Mutant Genome Project' (TMGP), a series of computer-generated photographs and new media installations that explore issues relating to genetic engineering and 'consumer medicine'. Recurring throughout the TMGP work is LUMP (Lifeform with Unevolved Mutant Properties) which is presented as the world's first commercially available 'designer baby'. LUMP is the human form completely redesigned by an engineer and an ad agency; physiognomically efficient and marketably cute." --Dunkelza 04:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm just thinking about some people who may wish to read this article whom may be quite sensitive,  is there not any way we can add a warning that the article contains disturbing images or do we not do that on Wikipedia? Keshidragon 21:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the image is disturbing enough to warrant such a disclaimer and I don't think Wikipedia makes use of such disclaimers. --Loremaster 18:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Young Family

message: The Primo Posthuman image was deleted despite the fact that Natasha Vita-More has released all rights for this image to be used. What gives? --Loremaster 22:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reinsterted Micheal Gibbs's much-liked Posthuman Future image to fill the void. --Loremaster 18:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primo Posthuman

message: Loremaster, you have repeatedly removed the external link reference to the Mormon Transhumanist Association (MTA). Will you please explain your reasoning? The MTA is a unique spiritually-oriented affiliate of the World Transhumanist Association and the reference to it broadens the objective description of Transhumanism. Arosophos 03:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mormon transhumanists are already mentioned in the article and one can find a link to the Mormon Transhumanist Association on the World Transhumanist Association page. --Loremaster 14:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the other external links are also referenced on the WTA site, yet the MTA arguably illustrates the breadth of Transhumanism better than most of the others. In addition, the mention of Mormon Transhumanists in the article is insufficient for providing information on the syncretization of Mormonism and Transhumanism. Arosophos 05:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't refering to the WTA site but the Wikipedia article on the World Transhumanist Association. Regardless, I won't rmeove the link anymore. As for providing more information on the syncretization of Mormonism and Transhumanism, I would be opposed to this since 1) this article is about secular Transhumanism not Mormon Transhumanism; and 2) Mormon transhumanism has not gained enough currency to deserve more attention or even an article of its own. As you may know from having read the Currents section below, the Christian transhumanism article was deleted. --Loremaster 18:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I plan to make no additions for now, I disgree with your assertion that this article is about secular Transhumanism. The article is about Transhumanism generally, otherwise it will not adhere to Wikipedia standards for objectivity. Arosophos 04:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that this article is about transhumanism in general. However, it doesn't change the fact that Mormon transhumanism is at this stage an insignificant current that doesnt deserve a greater mention than it currently does. --Loremaster 17:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormon Transhumanist Association external link 

message: *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!
Metamagician (or anyone else interested), could you please synthetize and summarize Bailey's arguments in the three articles linked to above? Once this is done, we could had this text to the Dehumanization section as a counter-argument that would come before the one that is already there. Once this is done, I think the Transhumanism article will finally be stable except for minor updates from time to time. --Loremaster 22:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let try this: In a series of articles in Reason magazine, Ronald Bailey accused opponents of genetic research involving the modification of animals as indulging in alarmism when they speculate about the creation of sub-human creatures with humanlike intelligence and brains resembling those of Homo sapiens. Bailey insists that the aim of conducting research on animals is simply to produce human health-care benefits. This wording could come before the current sentences about Hughes, etc., as it is a less radical approach. Some massaging in might be needed for it to run smoothly. All three references would be relevant. Metamagician3000 08:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --Loremaster 10:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ronald Bailey resource

message: I don't think Command & Conquer should be listed as an example of transhuman art.  I have not played all games, and those I did were a long time ago, but I have three problems:  First of all transhumanism only occurs in a minority of games in the series.  Secondly in none of the games that I've played there is an actual focus on Transhumanism.  Thirdly, because of the naming confusion (the first game (which has no transhuman themes) is called Command & Conquer, the series is also called Command & Conquer) I believe the example can possible confuse readers.  Anyway I think the other three examples are better and C&C should be removed.
Also, can we add Appleseed as an example in the Manga and Anime section?  First published in 1985 it may not be a personal favourite but it the narrative is heavily based on transhuman themes and it was influential.  Disco 11:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and done. Since I am not familiar with all these works, I'm always concerned that some people are trying to sneak in stuff that only slightly focused on a transhumanist theme. --Loremaster 16:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction and Art 

message: There's no point in two of the main editors of the article getting into a revert war over this wording at this late stage. I do think this "polemicist" is an odd word to choose. I have introduced language that I believe to be accurate as a description of Fukuyama and which he would surely agree with ... and which reflects the description of Bailey as a "proponent". Metamagician3000 10:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. --Loremaster 10:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point. I've improved the caption. Do you approve? --Loremaster 09:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption is now relevant to transhumanism, but refers to an analysis, and contains a neologism, with no sources cited.  The caption now appears to contain original research.  The older, shorter one, with "U.S." included, may be more appropriate.--StN 17:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the sources is a Wired interview by Brian Alexander of Max More and Natasha Vita-More: Don't Die, Stay Pretty: Introducing the ultrahuman makeover --Loremaster 20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you add it as a citation (since you are so good at these things)? --Loremaster 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done, although the link you provided does not seem to be active, and the article, though relevant, is not exactly an interview with the Mores.--StN 17:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange... The link works when I click on it but the one you found is better since it links to the article on Wired.com rather than the mirror article on Natasha's website. The interview of Max More where he uses the word "Humanish" is in French so that's why I posted a link to the Brian Alexander article instead. --Loremaster 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Polemicist"

message: What does it have to do with transhumanism?--StN 07:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I've improved the caption. Do you approve? --Loremaster 09:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption is now relevant to transhumanism, but refers to an analysis, and contains a neologism, with no sources cited.  The caption now appears to contain original research.  The older, shorter one, with "U.S." included, may be more appropriate.--StN 17:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the sources is a Wired interview by Brian Alexander of Max More and Natasha Vita-More: Don't Die, Stay Pretty: Introducing the ultrahuman makeover --Loremaster 20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you add it as a citation (since you are so good at these things)? --Loremaster 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done, although the link you provided does not seem to be active, and the article, though relevant, is not exactly an interview with the Mores.--StN 17:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange... The link works when I click on it but the one you found is better since it links to the article on Wired.com rather than the mirror article on Natasha's website. The interview of Max More where he uses the word "Humanish" is in French so that's why I posted a link to the Brian Alexander article instead. --Loremaster 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New caption for Amish image