Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 6

message: The treatment of Transhumanism as just another branch of Humanism is not NPOV. Many critics of TH find it to be very much out of line with traditional and modern humanist philosophies.  Since the point is made in the article that many Transhumanists see TH as an outgrowth of Humanism, and the article is already very long, adding this template is both superfluous and tendentious.
:I disagree with the NPOV issue but I agree with the lenght issue. However, I've modified the template from its original version to make it more compact. --Loremaster 21:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this seems right to other contributors, go ahead and use it.  In my understanding, however, the etymology of Transhumanism is "beyond the human animal," not "extension of the Humanist movement."  Therefore this seems to confuse things. --StN 05:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My preference (though not an especially strong one) is not to have it. I do agree that Loremaster has improved the template, if we really must have it, but I also have doubts as to whether the relationship between humanism and transhumanism is sufficiently uncontroversial to justify using such a template. Metamagician3000 05:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of Humanism template

message: User:Crippled Sloth and user 81.157.122.47 has recreated the neo-eugenic Transtopianism article (which had been repeatedly deleted in the past) and is on a campagain to add internal links to this article on as many articles directly or indirectly related to transhumanism as he can find. How should we deal with this? --Loremaster 21:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been deleted. --Loremaster 01:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. Metamagician3000 08:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Return of the Transtopian 

message: Notes 2 and 33 are the same, and both link to a pay site.  The latter situation may not be optimal, but it's probably ok.  In any case, they should be consolidated, but I can't determine the correct Wiki coding for doing this.--StN 04:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite style may help here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: I've been trying to put this on the page (at the appropriate point in the "Playing God" section). But I can't work out how to resize it appropriately. Metamagician3000 01:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This, of course, assumes that there might be agreement to the idea of using such an image at such a point. It seems appropriate to me, as we actually spell out the Vatican's position. Metamagician3000 01:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not in favor of using an image of Pope John Paul II for the Playing God argument.  Even though the Vatican's position is mentioned in the section it is not the one taken (most) seriously in the responses -- indeed, its relevancy to the public discourse is dismissed.  Much text is expended against the argument from developmental complexity, however, and I think an image evoking these concerns should be used here.  Loremaster has questioned the use of the image on the Iraq intervention here and so has (it seems) Kris Schnee.  Nonetheless, if the role of an image is not simply to allude to the issue or argument, but to actually illustrate it, I can't of a better public issue in which the unintended consequences of interventions by people convinced that they had it all under control is so vividly illustrated as in the Iraq effort.  Whether or not this parallel is persuasive enough to other contributors for it to be used, I believe the image used should illustrate the nature of this argument (as the man-on-the-moon image illustrates overcoming technical difficulties), and not be neutral in its own right.  The text is for that. --StN 02:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, good choice of image, IMHO. I've captioned it, and moved a couple of the images to the left to see if the variety helps. Everyone should feel free to move them back, or try other positions for images. You won't be treading on my toes. Metamagician3000 06:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playing God Image 

message: For the moment, I've deleted the following material: The moral implications of tampering with the "Image of God" do trouble many Christian Transhumanists, though others counter that the Image of God is merely the ability to wield power through knowledge and skill, and that God would not design a creation without knowing what it was truly capable of becoming. Indeed, much of Christian Transhumanism is based on the premise that to be "like God" is to self-create and consciously self-improve.
This seems like a sufficiently dramatic and controversial addition to the article that it needs some kind of documentation in support. It may be true, but it is not obviously so, perhaps because any Christian transhumanists are likely to be a small minority within the movement, and not very vocal. Rightly or wrongly, I associate the sort of view described here with Tristan Engelhart, but I'm not aware that he calls himself a transhumanist, has commented specifically on transhumanism, or even has a following among transhumanists. We really need to see more to back up these claims. Metamagician3000 11:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be careful not to include the opinion of only one person who describes himself as a Christian or Mormon transhumanist unless he is a serious thinker. --Loremaster 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian transhumanists and "playing God" 

message: Great work! savidan(talk) (e@) 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Congratulations, everyone. *Group hug.* :) Metamagician3000 04:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job! Let's keep at this, though, and make Page One as a featured article! --Kris Schnee 13:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye. I think it's time for PR now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: Can someone standardize the notes and references in the Playing God argument section? --Loremaster 20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, StN. --Loremaster 15:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes and References 

message: Why is the transhumanist rebuttal invisible on the published article despite the fact that it can be seen in the Editing Transhumanism page??? Once this glitch is fix, I think we can finally put Transhumanism up as featured article candidate. --Loremaster 15:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, StN. Love the sarcastic humor. ;) --Loremaster 20:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brave New World argument section 

message: Loremaster, I have some problems with the following new text: "While largely a grassroots and broadly based movement, transhumanism does tend toward rational arguments and empirical observations of natural phenomena; in many respects, transhumanists partake in a culture of science and reason, and are guided by humanitarian principles and values. Specifically, transhumanism seeks to apply reason, science and technology for the purposes of reducing poverty, disease, disability, malnutrition and oppressive governments around the globe. Many transhumanists actively assess the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve 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.[15]"
This sounds very generic to me. It could be signed onto by Tony Blair, George Bush, socialists and communists of various stripes, NeoCons, and so on.  Are they all Transhumanists?  It also runs counter to the the views of some transhumanists I have met and read, technophilic libertarians who just want to live forever.  I didn't remove the text or attempt to rewrite it, but I urge you to rethink it.--StN 16:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I didn't write it. This text has been on the page virtually unedited for years now. Second, it may be generic but isn't false. Third, I prefer to judge transhumanism based on the views and actions of prominent transhumanist thinkers and activists rather than a few rank-and-file adherents I meet on some mailing lists. That being said, this text could definitely be improved. We shoul try to better summarize the information provided in texts written by Nick Bostrom which are listed as sources for this text. --Loremaster 18:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory and practice

message: Can someone help expand and improve the Digitalism article due to its relation to transhumanist thought? --Loremaster 19:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot to say that we also need to mention digitalism in the text of Spirituality section. --Loremaster 22:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reconsidered. I removed the mention of digitalism from the article although it could be considered a current within transhumanism. Need to do more research before adding it again. --Loremaster 18:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention of digitalism was re-added in a satisfying way. --Loremaster 15:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Digitalism