Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 4

message: User:Dariodario and User:Tchardin make the same spelling mistake with supposed/supposedly (my emphasis):
**How is it that a supposidly fringe organization . . . Dariodario 08:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Touché! Loremaster 15:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Same talk pages, same views, same arguments, same spelling mistakes

message: Sam, I've deleted this sentence again: "*Prometheism. A religious philosophy synthesizing cosmotheism and transhumanism," for four reasons: (a) it's not a philosophy in the sense of a structured set of ideas, though that's a minor point because I accept the word can be used loosely; (b) Nuenke himself has said it's not a religion, but that they're calling is that only so they can claim religious freedom of speech; (c) it has little or nothing to do with transhumanism; and (d) most importantly, it's a tiny-minority view, consisting of a few websites run by one or two people. We need a third-party citation acknowledging the movement's existence. This post is for Sam Spade by the way. I have no intention of debating this with the person operating the Dariodario and Tchardin accounts. SlimVirgin 18:35, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
:Slimvirgin, please don't take this the wrong way, but you don't have a good grasp of Transhumanism and you are embarrasing yourself. A) Prometheism is not only a philosophy, it is also a religion. B) Historically, it started out as a neo-eugenic transhuman spirituality group which used the spiritual religious aspect to give it greater free speech protection and has evolved into a full religion - One which has inner party leaders and follower adherents. C) You do not comprehend or understand what Transhumanism is and if you were asked to explain why prometheism is not transhumanism, you would most likely continue to embarass yourself and prove C part 1. D) Prometheism is not a minority view.  Tchardin 18:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: +90% of the items listed within the currents in transhumanism section are tiny-minority views, consisting of only a few web sites and notation. Slimvirgin, please get over the childish, immature and petty agenda games. We can all see right through you. Dariodario 09:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't agree w any of you, I disagree w SlimVirgin on the issues, and w Tchardin and Dariodario on the presentation. Please review Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Ad Hominem, harshness w SV will get you nowhere. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Third-party citation needed

message: Why is there no emphasis on evolution, the most obvious, legitimate, and rational form of transhumanism? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Evolutionary transhumanism" is reduntant since all forms of transhumanism are evolutionary if by that qualifier one means that transhumanism inherently advocates the control of evolution by humams through rationally, morally and ethically guided change. Loremaster 18:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what morals and ethics have to do with it (please, not that Humanist distraction again), but yes, I agree most actual transhumanism is evolutionary in focus. That doesn't answer my question tho, which is why the article doesn't focus on evolution more than it does. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with the debate over the humanist roots of transhumanism (which wasn't a distraction). Transhumanism has, like every philosophy, a set of morals and ethics. However, that's not the issue.  Transhumanism is evolutionary or perhaps post-evolutionary to be more precise. The reason why the article doesn't focus on evolution as much as you would like it to is simply because past editors chose to focus on introducing readers to the basics. Bear in mind, a few months ago, Wikipedia issued an automated warning that this article was too long. This is one of reasons why most editors of this page are trying to maintain its conciseness. Tangents indulging in transhumanist speculation should be avoided. Loremaster 20:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Herr Spade is talking more about what might be termed "geologic transhumanism" whereby a transition from/through humanism is made by normal evolutionary (rather than guided) change. Hogwash, but if you want to cite a source or something, go right ahead. Avriette 16:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary transhumanism