Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 10

message: Expanding the captions under the Gattaca movie poster made its lenght is problematic since it now "infringes" on the space of the argument below. However, this made me realize that we should consider expanding the Gattaca argument section using the information in the Gattaca article's criticism section. --Loremaster 20:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support the latter suggestion if Simon Young can desmonstrate that his book contains such claims. --Loremaster 14:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Young, my apologies. I wrongly assumed that you were the anonymous user 83.71.74.102  who added a "libertarian response to gattica criticism". This text was then edited and improved by User:StN. I deleted this text because it didn't cite a source. However, the question remains whether or not your book contains such an argument. If it does, the text will put back in the article and your book will be cited a source. That being said, Mr. Young, do you realize how much your hysterical and obnoxious behavior has severely damaged your credibility as a serious transhumanist advocate? Despite all its flaws, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which you have constantly violated. I suggest you learn them quickly otherwise you risk getting banned. --Loremaster 14:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: These definitely overlap, but there are some differences.  The emphasis in the Gattaca argument is unequal access to resources, assuming that the resources (enhancement technologies) are really of value.  In the eugenics wars argument the emphasis is on biological divisions that can ensue from use of such technologies, and the conflict it would lead to, regardless of whether the modification technologies actually prove to be a positive benefit.--StN 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Another argument presented in Gattaca, is the idea that artificial genetic superiority is a fleeting supplement for true drive and ambition.  In the film, many of the transhumans, or 'valids' have a lack of motivation because they have accepted that their average efforts are beyond human excellence.  However, their efforts are matched and surpassed by an ordinary human.  An analogy to this could be seen as losing weight via surgery versus healthy diet and exercise.  While they both achieve a desired result of weight reduction, one is an artificial solution and ultimately hollow, while the other is brought about through effort and determination, and therefore more meaningful.
First, it requires a copy-edit.  Second, it needs more footnotes; and third, even if fully attributed to external sources, it might more properly belong in the Gattaca article.  Anville 00:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gattaca argument

message: I've removed the following text from the article:
Libertarian transhumanists acknowledge that inequities in the distribution of new technologies may be a problem in the short term, but suggest that market forces and resulting efficiencies would lower prices and increase availability in the long term. They point to the many products for which this has occurred in human history and assert that the same will be the case for body-modification technologies. Plastic surgery, for example, is now far more affordable than it was even five years ago.
Simon Young, the anonymous user who added this text, should cite a source before including it in the article. --Loremaster 00:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support the latter suggestion if Simon Young can desmonstrate that his book contains such claims. --Loremaster 14:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Young, my apologies. I wrongly assumed that you were the anonymous user 83.71.74.102  who added a "libertarian response to gattica criticism". This text was then edited and improved by User:StN. I deleted this text because it didn't cite a source. However, the question remains whether or not your book contains such an argument. If it does, the text will put back in the article and your book will be cited a source. That being said, Mr. Young, do you realize how much your hysterical and obnoxious behavior has severely damaged your credibility as a serious transhumanist advocate? Despite all its flaws, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which you have constantly violated. I suggest you learn them quickly otherwise you risk getting banned. --Loremaster 14:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Libertarian response

message: Isnt the eugenics wars argument essentially the same as the gattaca argument... just a thought
:These definitely overlap, but there are some differences.  The emphasis in the Gattaca argument is unequal access to resources, assuming that the resources (enhancement technologies) are really of value.  In the eugenics wars argument the emphasis is on biological divisions that can ensue from use of such technologies, and the conflict it would lead to, regardless of whether the modification technologies actually prove to be a positive benefit.--StN 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated argument

message: I nixed the following paragraph from the Gattaca section:
:Another argument presented in Gattaca, is the idea that artificial genetic superiority is a fleeting supplement for true drive and ambition.  In the film, many of the transhumans, or 'valids' have a lack of motivation because they have accepted that their average efforts are beyond human excellence.  However, their efforts are matched and surpassed by an ordinary human.  An analogy to this could be seen as losing weight via surgery versus healthy diet and exercise.  While they both achieve a desired result of weight reduction, one is an artificial solution and ultimately hollow, while the other is brought about through effort and determination, and therefore more meaningful.
First, it requires a copy-edit.  Second, it needs more footnotes; and third, even if fully attributed to external sources, it might more properly belong in the Gattaca article.  Anville 00:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Text removed

message: I've taken the liberty of nominating this article for assessment for the Version 0.5 list. Metamagician3000 13:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is Version 0.5 exactly? --Loremaster 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. Metamagician3000 01:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if I understand correctly, the Transhumanism article could be on a Wikipedia CD or DVD if they ever decide to make one. I guess this is one more reason for us to find good images to add to the article. --Loremaster 14:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 0.5

message: :This has been an enjoyable experience for me partly because of the process of negotiation with reasonable people who I am very much in disagreement with.  It's very democratic.
Now now, StN, haven't you heard the bromide that "Wikipedia is not a democracy"?  ;-)  That aside, here are what I consider to be the notable differences between the Criticisms section as first featured and that which exists today:
* The headings "Ethical criticisms" and "Practical criticisms" have been removed, and the sub-headings for each argument have been raised a level.  I think this is an improvement, since the division isn't really hard-and-fast.
* The lead paragraph of "Ethical criticisms" has been moved to become the second paragraph of "Criticisms" overall.  This seems a reasonable change.  Immediately following this, a note has been added:
::Some of the most widely known critiques of the transhumanist program are found in novels and fictional films which, despite presenting imagined worlds rather than philosophical analyses, can be used as touchstones for some of the more formal arguments.
:I think this is a bit of a misstatement.  There's a difference between a work of art made expressly to critique an intellectual position and a work of art which incidentally illuminates an idea (or can be made to do so, given lots of lit-crit elbow grease).  Brave New World might exemplify the former, while The Terminator is more of the latter.  However, I agree that an overall statement about the role fiction plays in the back-and-forth arguments is an important thing to have.
* Explanatory notes have been added to the section headings, e.g., "Gattaca argument (biotech divide)".  This is probably a wise move.
* The covers for Futurehype, Brave New World, Playing God and Enough have been removed, as have the movie posters for Gattaca and The Terminator.  This is probably not worth worrying about, though I could make a case for bringing back one or possibly two of them.
* The "Terminator argument" subsection has been modified.  The version first Featured says the following:
::A notable critic of what some see as transhumanist hubris is Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, who argued in his essay  Why the future doesn't need us, that human beings would likely guarantee their own extinction by developing the technologies favored by transhumanists. He evokes, for example, the "grey goo scenario" where out-of-control self-replicating nanorobots could consume entire ecosystems, resulting in global ecophagy.Joy 2000
::Related notions were voiced earlier by Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski, an avowed neo-luddite zealot, and culture jammer Kalle Lasn, who claimed that humanity has an inherent lack of competence to direct its own evolution and should therefore completely relinquish technology development.Kaczynski 1995
:Concerns raised above prompted this to be rewritten as follows:
::A notable critic of what some see as transhumanist hubris is Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, who, after reading the anarcho-primitivist manifesto of Theodore Kaczynski, argued in his essay Why the future doesn't need us, that human beings would likely guarantee their own extinction by developing the technologies favored by transhumanists. He invokes, for example, the "grey goo scenario" where out-of-control self-replicating nanorobots could consume entire ecosystems, resulting in global ecophagy. Kaczynski 1995Joy 2000 Related notions are also voiced by Kalle Lasn, a culture jammer who wrote the Cyborg Manifesto spoof 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.
:I'd call this an improvement, although I don't enjoy weasel phrases like "what some see as transhumanist hubris".  How about "Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, criticizes what he sees as transhumanist hubris.  After reading the anarcho-primitivist manifesto of Theodore Kaczynski, Joy argued . . ."  I mean, it's not my job to say just how much hubris has been vented in discussing transhumanism, but the only thing this reference proves is that one guy sees evidence of unwarranted pride.
* The counter-argument to Enough has gained a footnote.  Whoopie.
* The following has been removed from the Gattaca argument:
::Libertarian's would respond by pointing out that this may be a problem in the short term, but that in the medium to long term, due to market forces and more effecient technology the average price would fall to a point where it would become largely affordable, just like with most products in human history. For example, due to market forces plastic surgery is now far more affordable than it was even five years ago.
:Yeah, it deserved to go.
* Playing God has been modified.  The paragraph which read,
::The first argument does not trouble transhumanists since most secular bioethicists reject it as irrelevant to public policy in a society that embraces freedom of religion. To the extent that it relies on a supposed sin of defying God's will, secular thinkers argue that it is not morally binding on non-believers and is inappropriate as a political argument.
:has been expanded to
::The first argument does not trouble secular transhumanists, who reject it as irrelevant to public policy in a society that embraces freedom of religion. To the extent that it relies on a supposed sin of defying God's will, secular thinkers argue that it is not morally binding on non-believers and is inappropriate as a political argument. Religious thinkers allied with transhumanist goals, such as the theologians Ronald Cole-Turner and Ted Peters, also reject the first argument, holding that the doctrine of "co-creation" provides an obligation to use genetic engineering to improve human biology.Cole-Turner 1993Peters 1997 
:The addition of sources alone makes this an improvement.
That's all I can spot on a first pass.
Anville 17:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill Joy never explicitly mentions "transhumanist hubris" in his essay Why the future doesn't need us, or in interviews about his views expressed in his essay. He is simply critical of technologies that many transhumanists support so I am changing the beginning of this sentence to read "A notable critic of emerging technologies favored by transhumanists" --Loremaster 18:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  Sounds like a move in the right direction.  Anville 18:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, thanks for all this work. It seems to confirm that that the article has actually improved of late, despite Toby77's concerns and my nervousness about fiddling with it. Metamagician3000 01:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms section scrutinized

message: Political scientist Klaus-Gerd Giesen, for example, has suggested that transhumanism's concentration on the individual body as the locus of solutions to social inequities represents the triumph of the market economy.Giesen 2004
I've temporarily removed the sentence above from the Eugenics Wars argument section because I don't think it belongs there. It would make more sense for it to be in the Gattaca argument section. --Loremaster 17:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--StN 01:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. --Loremaster 01:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've also changed the title to something I think is more appropriate. --Loremaster 17:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also changed the sub-title. --Loremaster 01:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Where did the Giesen stuff go? After all the effort we went to to struggle with it, I think it is worth keeping. That doesn't mean I see much merit in its arguments, but that's not the point... Metamagician3000 08:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now in the Gattaca argument section. --Loremaster 14:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eugenics Wars argument 

message: I've noticed and support StN's recent and very good edits of the Master race, Gattaca and Frankenstein arguments. However, I think the Gattace argument is slightly misleading. Correct me if I am wrong but in the film Gattaca the biotech divide is not a result of the poor not having access to eugenic enhancement technologies but bioconservative people choosing to have natural children who grow up to be working-poor second-class citizens. --Loremaster 01:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one way of looking at it. But this perspective can lead one to say that those who don't get with the high-tech program have only themselves to blame if they lose out. A prime advocate of this view is the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. It seems to me to underestimate the heavy hand of those in control of the technologies and to overestimate the choices available to those on the slide. The film may have been Friedmanesque, but I don't remember it that way.--StN 02:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether of not we mention Thomas Friedman, I think the argument should reflect both the Mckibben and Friedman perspective in order for both the name of the argument and the citing of the film to be accurate. --Loremaster 14:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In Loremaster's most recent changes to this section I feel that the difference between McKibben's liberal argument and Giesen's more radical argument is inappropriately finessed.  Hughes's response is directed toward the liberal critique but doesn't touch the radical one.  I think it is another case of giving the transhumanists the last word, but here the critic's point (unless a more profound, non-technophilic response can be found) should be afforded this privilege.--StN 02:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Although you are right that we should expand Hughes's response to Giesen's critique, the point I am trying to make clear is that democratic transhumanists do not concentrate solely on the enhancement of the individual body as the locus of solutions to social inequities. Hughes also argues that we must use technology and democracy to solve problems like poverty and climate change. Since I assume you haven't read his book, have you at least read his essay, Democratic Transhumanism 2.0? --Loremaster 14:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I read it (and the book). Its all great, except for the transhumanism part. And the snarky way he deals with people he disagrees with.  (But maybe that goes along with the transhumanism?)--StN 16:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I now have to bow out of editing this article, since my points are being misunderstood and my changes are being reverted by Loremaster without good arguments, and I don't seem to be getting support from other editors.  I thought the article was about transhumanism and not what a fine person James Hughes is.  How will transhumanism, which Metamagician now acknowledges was invented by Max More, end poverty, neo-colonial wars, and stop preventable climate change (sorry for the climoconservative bias)?--StN 15:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes it sound as if I was somehow evading the point about Max More's role in the 1980s and early 1990s. We've long said that he gave transhumanism its modern definition. I was surprised that Natasha thought we were doing him down. For better or worse, though, he's really left it to others to develop and promote the philosophy in prominent mainstream articles and books, which is why so many citations are inevitably to Bostrom and Hughes. Max More is still a fairly young man, so I hope he'll add to his legacy with a major book or something. However, he has not done so so far. Metamagician3000 02:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: First, I think critics of transhumanism such as StN but also many transhumanists have a very limited understanding of what transhumanism emcompasses. Despite (apolitical) transhumanism's emphasis on individual human enhancement through cybernetic, genetic and nanotic technologies, transhumanism has many currents which specifically focus on the social problems StN keeps mentionning. For example, the pro-automation/post-work/guaranteed minimum income society or the molecular manufacturing-based post-scarcity economy is a transhumanist approach to ending poverty while technogaian alternative technology is a transhumanist approach to stoping preventable climate change. Second, I think StN's critique of transhumanism is in bad faith. Does anyone criticize environmentalism, which is an ideology and movement which focuses on finding and promoting solutions to environmental problems, for not focusing on ending poverty, neo-colonial wars or stoping the digital divide? Of course not. I strongly recommend everyone reads Community Perspectives on Transhumanism. --Loremaster 16:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gattaca argument 

message: Loremaster, you can define "transhumanism" any way you wish, and use this article to cleanse the concept of the nuttiness with which anyone who has been around the web is familiar. But it is a disservice to people who want to learn about this movement to give an anodyne WTA response (rather than the more characteristic, "Who cares? Deal with it!") to all scenarios of inequality, dehumanisation, eugenics, etc.  In the words of one friendly critic of the movement "So many among the "transhumanist"-identified were and remain market fundamentalists, facile genetic determinists, climate-change deniars, corporate-military apologists, boys-with-toys, parochial know-nothings."  I don't really see this reflected in the article.--StN 18:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A) If you find a verifiable source quoting this "friendly critic", then the quotation you give would slide nicely into the beginning of the "Criticisms" section.  B) To me at least, the logical first reply to said criticism would be "ad hominem".  Anville 19:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As Hughes explains in his 2002 essay The Politics of Transhumanism, "Transhumanism is an emergent philosophical movement which says that humans can and should become more than human through technological enhancements. Contemporary transhumanism has grown out of white, male, affluent, American Internet culture, and its political perspective has generally been a militant version of the libertarianism typical of that culture. Nonetheless transhumanists are becoming more diverse, with some building a broad liberal democratic philosophic foundation in the World Transhumanist Association ... For the transhumanist movement to grow and become a serious challenge to their opposites, the bio-Luddites, they will need to distance themselves from their elitist anarcho-capitalist roots and clarify commitments to liberal democratic institutions, values and public policies. By embracing political engagement and the use of government to address equity, safety and efficacy concerns about transhuman technologies, transhumanists are in a better position to attract a larger, broader audience." I would argue that there is evidence that in 2006 this is happening or has already happened so I think it would be a disservice to people who want to learn more about transhumanism to silence this new reality in order to satisfy a personal bias. --Loremaster 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the situation as I understand it: transhumanism has been, and still is, X, according to James Hughes, but Hughes hopes it will become Y.  You believe there is evidence that it is becoming Y.  The Y position is featured throughout the article (six citations to four works by Hughes, six citations to two works by Bostrom, three citations to three works by Sandberg, seven citations to six articles from the WTA website, assorted others). The X position is barely hinted at.  But when I suggested adding something specific about X my "bias" was castigated, and when I inserted Giesen's argument so as to indicate the fact that it is not addressed by Y (which did not necessitate removing any Y text), it was immediately repositioned to suggest that it was addressed by Y.  Moreover, I was said to be acting in bad faith for suggesting that transhumanism be evaluated in relation to its ambitions of transforming the human future. Am I really the one who is trying to silence reality, or to satisfy a personal bias?--StN 00:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I wasn't clear enough. My point is that 1) even though critics are not aware of this, transhumanism has been Y for a while now; and 2) Y does in fact address Giesen's argument even if the Gattaca counter-argument I wrote still doesn't reflect this to your satisfaction. --Loremaster 08:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also add that both Max More and Natasha Vita-More have distanced themselves from their earlier elitist anarcho-capitalist views. So who exactly are we supposed to quote as an advocate of "X transhumanism"? All the nutty rank-and-file transhumanists mentioned by the "friendly critic", Dale Carrico, who have badly-written websites or post messages filled with extremist views on some Extropy Institute or WTA mailing lists? --Loremaster 15:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad faith?

message: First sentence of "Theory and practice" section at time of Featured Article designation:
While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply reason, science, and technology to foster humanitarian principles and values, transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual, rather than collective, level.
First sentence of "Theory and practice" section today, after transhumanism's universal progressive orientation was questioned:
While transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply reason, science and technology for the purposes of reducing poverty, disease, disability, malnutrition and oppressive governments around the globe, transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual as well as the collective level.
Note sweeping characterization of "transhumanist theorists and advocates" and expanded portfolio.
Number of non-redundant Google hits using transhumanism + "oppressive government": 24; 
number of these dealing with Aeon Flux: 3;
number dealing with Omega Point: 2;
number dealing with an actual oppressive government: 0
--StN 01:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the earlier version was better. I'd be happy if it were changed back, or if something in between were adopted. There's always a risk of seeing a particular version of transhumanism (e.g. that of James Hughes) as "transhumanism". There are many transhumanist positions, and an article like this has to describe the lowest common denominator of them. Metamagician3000 02:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Decline??? Can we please avoid the histrionics? I actually went back to the 30 December 2002 version of this article to copy and paste part of the the original sentence which was written by George Dvosrky of Betterhumans.com that was in this section before StN edited it to fit his narrow view of transhumanism. I don't think the original sentence was presenting a particular version of transhumanism. On the contrary, it was trying to emcompass all the versions out there. Regardless, I think we should debate whether or not there is evidence to support this statement before altering or deleting it. --Loremaster 07:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to me to say "liberal-minded" transhumanists, but maybe that's just my bias.--StN 16:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. However, I would argue that liberal democratic transhumanism is now the dominant transhumanist philosophy which the vast majority of transhumanist thinkers and advocates from the left (James Hughes and Nick bostrom) to the right (Max More and Natasha Vita-More) adhere to. Surveys of the WTA show that the majority of their rank-and-file members are left-wingers or moderates. Reckless libertarian transhumanism is increasingly a marginal current which only some nutty but vocal people still adhere to. --Loremaster 18:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of Transhumanism article's decline 

message: ...that we are here to write a neutral article explaining transhumanism. We've interpreted that brief  as including the writing of a large section with a neutral account of the criticisms commonly made of transhumanism and the transhumanist agenda, including what is typically said in reply to those criticisms. That's all we're here for. The article should contain enough factual information to be a starting point for someone who wants to debunk transhumanism, or promote it, or simply learn more about it. But the article itself should not reflect anyone's agenda to put transhumanism in either a good light or a bad light. If any of us find ourselves itching to debunk transhumanism or to promote it, we are getting too emotionally involved. And yes, I do also appreciate (as above) that people's initial beliefs and values will affect what strikes them as neutral. One person's obvious point is another person's self-evident absurdity. That's a reason to cut each other some slack. However, it's also a reason for each of us to bend over backwards to assist the "other side" of the argument. For example, I expressed the Catholic view and the McKibben view as eloquently as I could, although I disagree with them. I've actually put more work into coming up with good formulations of views that I disagree than into formulating views that I agree with. That's how NPOV is supposed to work. Metamagician3000 02:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. And for the record, I am not interested in either debunking or promoting transhumanism. I only want to see a fair and accurate article on a subject I find interesting. --Loremaster 08:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can everyone please remember....

message: Despite my removal of one POV sentence, I am satisfied with almost all of StN's recent edits to the article. --Loremaster 17:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the following text from the Gattaca argument: In the view of these critics, therefore, transhumanism is part of the problem, not part of the solution. I think this is StN's personal interpretation of the views of these critics, especially Giesen's, rather than something they actually said. --Loremaster 18:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I refactored and largely removed some new argumentative material - wherever it came from. Again, without checking who is making what edits, I do worry that the article is still so unstable after having gone through FA. Although Anville's analysis seems to show that it is improving rather than declining, we must all avoid the temptation of thinking that we are here to deter people from, or attract people to, transhumanism. Our task is simply to describe it. Metamagician3000 04:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About the fairness and accuracy dispute

message: :Despite the goal of some transhumanists to disperse the benefits of enhancement technologies widely, some critics question the movement's focus on body modification as a central means of alleviating some of the problems facing humanity. Political scientist Klaus-Gerd Giesen, for example, has asserted that transhumanism's concentration on altering the human body represents the ultimate form of consumerism and is thus a negative manifestation of advanced capitalism.
I do think that some of the critiques of consumerism as a kind of domestication of freedom in an era of relentless privatization, distraction, and docility are valid to a point, and I guess I might agree with Klaus-Gerd Giesen that at least some of such a critique will apply to at least some ongoing and upcoming practices of medical modification.
I don't quite see what makes medical modification a more "ultimate" kind of consumerism than, you know, common or garden variety consumerism is, unless the stealthy premise here is that there is a natural and normative body that is being wilfully violated and consumed here, but if our Marxist friend read more of what Marx had to say about nature he might find himself wondering to what extent his own apparent intial personal investment in the very idea of such a natural and normative body itself might have already made him vulnerable to such a consumer critique. Certainly he's bought a line of bourgeois bullshit *somewhere* along the line here. :) Dale Carrico
:How come Dale Carrico pops up from time to time under Loremaster's timestamp (see the Discussion History log) to deliver cutting apercus using unpleasant language?  Does he communicate his insights directly through Loremaster, or is he some sort of doppelganger?  And who is "our Marxist friend" referred to by Carrico, Giesen, or yours truly?  In either case, it is a snide form of criticism, and the quoting of scripture from a 19th century thinker against 21st century commentators is a bit of a misunderstanding of Marxist-influenced thought, to which I (StN, not Giesen, since we're channeling others today) plead somewhat guilty. Marx, in fact, never dealt with consumerism, but some writers influenced by him have.  To say body modification is the ultimate form of consumerism is not to endorse a "normative body" (I, for one, don't care what people do to, or with, their own bodies) but only to say that consumerists have traditionally made themselves happy (or less unhappy) by means of clothes, cars, cell phones or other fashion accessories and appurtenances, and going after the newest fashion in technological improvement (as Anville has recently posted about here) of one's own body (and doing it to future generations) to relieve some sense of inadequacy, is certainly the ultimate in the consumerist ethic.  One's body is, after all, even in our post-modern world, closer to one's self than is one's iPod.  It has nothing at all to do with privileging the "natural."--StN 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted Dale Carrico's comments, which were forwarded to me by email, in some talk pages in order to contribute to the debate. To answer your question, Carrico was refering to Giesen as "our Marxist friend". --Loremaster 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Giesen's critique of transhumanism