Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 8

message: All right, just one thing about the latest changes. I don't see how a book by Foucault published in 1988 can possibly be a response to transhumanist claims in the way that the text now claims. The text used to cite a recent work by Habermas, which makes a lot more sense in terms of the timeframe in which the debate has played out. Foucault cannot possibly have addressed this issue in the way described: transhumanism was hardly heard of in 1988. I can see how someone else who did so might have cited Foucault, but I don't believe that we can cite Foucault in this way if Foucault was not discussing transhumanism. It is original research. Hasn't Stuart Newman, George Annas, or Habermas, or someone made the point that is being made here? I'm not against critics getting the "last word" on this point in exactly this way if someone really has had the last word in the public debate so far, but saying that Foucault's general views are lying around kind of available for critics of transhumanism to draw on is not the same thing. They have either done so to date or they haven't. If they have, we need to reference where they have. A reference to Foucault, writing two decades ago does not do this. Can whoever made this change please address the problem. Metamagician3000 00:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's now a reference to Hayles in addition to the one to Foucault. That's better. I still thimk that the reference to Foucault should go as it does not support the claim being made in the text (the claim that critics of transhumanism say certain things) unless Hayles actually cites Foucault, in which case we should say so. Metamagician3000 06:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it so that the connection between Hayles views and Foucault via "embodiment" are spelled out.  I think it is important to mention Foucault and this concept, as it is implicit in a number of the critiques discussed here.--StN 15:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a big deal, but some people may challenge it as original research unless critics of transhumanism have actually referred to Foucault. For us to say that they could have done so, or that they were implicitly relying on ideas from Foucault, is really us theorising. FWIW I think they some of them are more likely to be influenced by a similar idea in communitarian thought than by Foucault, although Hayles is probably an exception in that regard. After all, some leading critics of transhumanist proposals, such as Michael Sandell, are communitarians. Maybe you'd like to think about that at some time in the future, but let's not open up more possible revisions now. I'll let it go for now and see what happens in the FA. Metamagician3000 00:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is someone who is bringing Foucault's ideas to bear on transhumanism in a way that I believe is relevant the the article's characterization: http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/more/ben-grosscup-ethnography-of-the-transhumanist-movement/  This is obviously not a completed study, and while the writer doesn't appear to be an opponent of TH, I think he can be counted as a "critic."  This turned up in a cursory web search, but it shows (along with Haynes, who refers to Foucault explicitly, and whose critique is lodged against transhumanist objectives, though she doesn't mention the movement by name in the book I referred to) that Foucault is part of the discourse on TH.--StN 00:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foucault

message: Should something of Equilibrium be included? --Brand спойт 11:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the Fiction and Art section should become a laundry list of every movie, especially B-rated ones, that has a theme that be vaguely described as transhumanist or anti-transhumanist but perhaps you have good reasons for this inclusion. --Loremaster 13:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to give a little historical perspective, cyberpunk couldn't become an FA until we moved the laundry-list cruft to list of cyberpunk works.  (In other words, I've seen the cruft buildup happen before, and so I agree with Loremaster.)  Anville 19:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided to include it to Transhumanism in fiction. --Brand спойт 19:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wise decision. --Loremaster 21:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion 

message: Is there anything that's stopping us from going for FA? I think you guys have done a tremendous job!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone on FAC is sure to complain about needing Fair Use rationales for the images.  This is probably most important for the pictures which are not book covers or movie posters.  Anville 17:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which images are you refering to exactly? They all seem to have legitimate Fair Use rationales. --Loremaster 18:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the images have the boilerplate boxes made with templates like .  This would be enough to satisfy me (none of the picture choices are totally absurd or purely decorative), but as the template says, "please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page", and I've seen people on FAC get stringent about it.  When I was shepherding Cyberpunk toward FA, I was told that Sunset Blvd. was the model to emulate in this respect.  Anville 20:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see. I hadn't noticed that. Thank you for pointing this out. However, I may not have the time to work on this for a while. --Loremaster 21:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the only aspect that still worries me, although we did do quite a lot of work on it earlier. Otherwise, I think it's done. I just gave it one more copyedit, and made about four tiny changes, mostly to correct typos or just for better euphony. Metamagician3000 06:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the text is settled.  Concerning the pictures, I think the magazine covers and movie screen shot are the only ones that need special justification.--StN 16:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I understood this.  The "text" I was referring to was the text of the article, in response to your query about whether it is ready for FA consideration.  I agree about the need to add rationales to the licensing sections.  I'm hoping those who found the magazine covers and screen shot can do this -- I think once one is provided the others will just be variants.  I would be happy to help with editing.--StN 19:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. The FA query was actually Piotrus not mine. As for the images, I chose and uploaded 6 of 13 images currently on the Transhumanism article: Posthuman Future; We Can Rebuild Him; Holy Tech; Playing God Redesigning Life; Enough; and Frankenstein. However, I may not find the time to add the Fair Use rationales before next weekend. --Loremaster 21:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for FA? 

message: Transhumanism is now a featured article candidate. Please voice your support or objection.
:Good. Well, we have a nice stable, comprehensive article. I won't "vote" because I'm much too deeply involved in the article. But I'll try to help address any problems. Metamagician3000 03:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you can vote despite your deep involvement. --Loremaster 17:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I voted but with a disclaimer. I think that the votes of uninvolved parties should carry more weight, whether or not that practice is usually followed, though it may not matter in this case because so far no one has voted to oppose. Metamagician3000 23:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Transhumanism 

message: I would like to add a "see also" to Religious Transhumanism.  --David Wallace Croft 2006-05-13
:Mr. Croft, although I am willing to include the mention of Religious transhumanism in the Spirituality section since we try to avoid creating a See also section, I am concerned that, as the founder of a religious transhumanist church, you are trying to use Wikipedia solely to promote your religion. That being said, even if you are able to reassure me, I encourage you to learn how to use Wikipedia and raise the quality of the Religious transhumanism article according to Wikipedia guidelines. --Loremaster 14:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that a Wikipedia moderator is the process of deleting the Religious transhumanism article. Oh well... --Loremaster 14:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the Religious transhumanism article can be taken to deletion review, or a new article can be created under the same title as long as it has different content, some claim to notability, is not done in a way that is simply vanity or spamming, etc. Perhaps Mr Croft could explore those avenues. I'm not sure that it's a notable topic, but maybe it is. Metamagician3000 02:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious Humanism

message: 1. Make sure all images have Fair Use Rationales using Wikipedia guidelines.
2. Had a captioned image of FM2030 to the History section.
3. Expand the Gattaca argument section using the content of the Gattaca's article criticism section.
Once this is done, the article will be perfect. --Loremaster 04:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 1 is essentially done, but please confirm.  Doing 2 would be very desirable.  Concerning 3, I looked at the Criticisms section of the Gattaca article and didn't find anything that would improve our presentation.  I don't think we should put in more material for the sake of the layout. I think it's ok as is, but let's see what you come up with.--StN 04:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning 3, it was both for the sake of layout and substantive content so I'll work on it tomorrow. On an unrelated note, can you better rephrase the sentence about Layman in the Terminator argument and cite his website http://www.robowatch.org/ as a source. --Loremaster 04:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at Dr. Layman's website. He seems like a man with a concern, but there is little of substance there, and some strange stuff about his being "a bearer of genuine American Culture," "The First", and having been awarded a "Grand Ph.D."  I think we should stay away from this, and suggest removing the sentence that refers to him.  The Greenpeace citation is sufficient.--StN 05:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I've edited the article to make the mention of movies and novels even more pertinent and seemless. --Loremaster 13:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loremaster, I am going to remove the reference to frankenfoods.  Although I personally have criticisms of genetically engineered foods, the issues are entirely different from genetic engineeering of humans, and conflating the two like this obscures what critics of transhumanism object to.  In particular, anyone reading this who wonders what is so bad about genetically engineered foods would be led to dismiss the "frankenpeople" spectre.  Also, your resizing of the Mary Shelley picture creates a size disparity with the Spencer picture that bothers me a bit.  I will work on this.--StN 17:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. --Loremaster 01:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Recap 

message: Now that we have a featured article it should be easier to obtain a picture of FM2030 for the History section.  James Hughes has produced a film on him and should have access to stills or screenshots for which approval for public domain use could be solicited from the copyright owners, whom Hughes is undoubtedly in contact with.  If anyone knows Hughes, or knows someone who knows him, I suggest writing to him.  The fourth picture down in the right-hand column of this page, for example, http://www.fm2030.com/photos/late.cfm, would be highly suitable.--StN 19:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the picture. I will contact my colleague who knows Hughes. --Loremaster 00:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My colleague forwarded me James Hughes's reply in which he says, The images and that website are owned by FM2030's widow Flora Schnall, and we have permission to use them. --Loremaster 15:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll insert the picture, then, with a brief identification.  Please expand the caption as you feel appropriate.--StN 15:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. --Loremaster 15:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's up.  I changed 'FM-2030' to 'FM2030' throughout, to conform with Flora Schnall's website.  He must have stopped using his middle initial at some point.--StN 15:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I didn't realize this so I reverted your changes. You can change it back if you want. By the way, I added this picture to the FM-2030 article. --Loremaster 15:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New image for the History section

message: I removed the following text from the article until a source is cited:
Religious transhumanists generally subscribe to the doctrine of co-creating with God, which they believe provides them with a warrant to participate in the reconstruction of human biology.
Even the page which it is internally linked to is dubious. --Loremaster 04:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's back, in a different form, with references.--StN 05:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. --Loremaster 13:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playing God argument section 

message: Looking over the "Eugenics Wars" section it struck me that internally linking the term "healthy, happy, and multiply talented child" to designer babies, a speculative and controversial prospect, is highly non-NPOV.  I rewrote the relevant sentence to reflect a balanced view of this transhumanist goal.--StN 04:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think deleting any mention of "designer babies" from that section would be best. Perhaps including one in the Playing God argument would be more appropriate. --Loremaster 14:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designer babies 

message: Transhumanism now appears to be a featured article (though I don't see a star on the front page).  Congratulations all around!--StN 18:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks in large part to you and Metamagician. ;) --Loremaster 00:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Ronline just added the featured article bronze star tag to the article. :) --Loremaster 03:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Congrats everyone. *POPS CHAMPAGNE CORK* I've been caught up in some other things the last couple of days, including a content dispute with another article, and hadn't until now seen the outcome of my little whine about the Ubermensch/Nietzsche thing. Apologies to StN if I was a bit grumpy the other day. What you guys have actually done with this section is terrific. I feel proud of this article not just because it is good but because as a group of people with varied viewpoints we've been able to negotiate our way to this outcome - it's a great example of Wikipedia actually working. Metamagician3000 13:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Transhumanism will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2006. --Loremaster 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Featured Article Status'''

message: It seems to me that a more logical order for the Ethical Criticisms would be the following: Playing God, Enough, Terminator, Gattaca, Brave New World, Frankenstein, Eugenics Wars.  There's no perfect logic, but this seems to me to move along an axis from the practical/philosophical to political/futuristic-dystopian.  The current order is Playing God, Terminator, Brave New World, Enough, Gattaca, Frankenstein, Eugenics Wars, which doesn't have any logic that I can see.  I won't make any changes until I at least hear back from Loremaster and Metamagician.--StN 20:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the lack of a logic to the order of criticisms has always bothered me but I haven't sat down long enough to think of the best one so I'm open to suggestions. --Loremaster 00:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's OK. Once I find the time, I will try to see if there is a better choice otherwise we can stick with this order. --Loremaster 00:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure there is a perfect order. The current order seems okay. I'll think about it, but take absence of any further comment from me as agreement. Metamagician3000 14:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Criticisms