Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Same talk pages, same views, same arguments, same spelling mistakes

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)
    • the supposid "widely held version". . . Tchardin 03:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Similarities between User:Dnagod and User:Dariodario—

  • "Viewpoints" as two words:
    • Allow all view points. Dnagod 01:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • censorship of alternative view points Dariodario 13:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Opin instead of opinion:
    • a world with people of different opins. . . Dnagod 22:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It's false. Its your opin. Dariodario 13:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Missing apostrophes:
    • stuff they are interested, not stuff they arent . . . Dariodario 13:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe this isnt the place for that though. Dariodario 13:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I dont buy it. Dariodario 13:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • i dont like the name. Dnagod 22:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • im disappointed with the bias . . . its fair to say, if you dont like that fact . . . Dnagod 01:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And quite a bit of there/their, you're/your confusion. SlimVirgin 09:41, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Touché! Loremaster 15:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ending this dispute

Although I stand by all my arguments, I am sick and tired of this dispute. I don't want to spend the rest of my life fighting this battle so I've edited the article to remove any mention of some offshots being disputed. Futhermore, I have included them in the Currents within transhumanism section. Can someone please archive this Talk page? Loremaster 16:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Loremaster 21:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've left the links as they are, but I've removed prometheism from the text. It was described as a religious philosophy, but if you read Nuenke's own writing, he says himself it's not a religion, and it's certainly not a philosophy. Also, it seems to consist of just a few people. They're not notable in any sense, and much of the argument on this page has been from apparent sockpuppets. SlimVirgin 23:10, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Slimvirgin, can you enlighten us as to what prometheism is if its not a religion or a philosophy?
Slimvirgin, I accept your decision. Loremaster 23:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dear Loremaster, although this is a victory for enabling the article on transhumanism to become more impartial, neutral, even handed and unbiased with less of a political agenda, I find myself saddened by your statements which allude to you expressing being tired and acting as if you were bullied into neutrality and impartiality. The goal of this discussion was not to bully you into accepting a more neutral and unbiased point of view when it comes to this transhuman article, the point was to help you understand there will be many vectors of post humans and those vectors will include a lot of these increasingly popular and excusatory groups which will be exceedingly selective on things like goals, objectives, vision, race, religion, politics, country and weltanschauung. Consider the Transhuman movement to truly be the vision of diversity, not a specific or generic WTA pigeonhole movement. Transhumanism is about overcoming limitations using science and technology, not a battle left or right wing political dogmas.
The WTA tends to attract Trotskyites, post-Marxist, socialist and other left leaning types within the transhumanism movement, where absolutely no open debate on issues of race and eugenics is allowed – fair enough. Reading the articles published by the WTA executive director James Hughes on various political issues makes it clear why WTA attracts these types of left-leaning people from the political scale. Extropy tends to attract right-wing and conservative types among the transhumanists; having followed Extropy for many years they are unarguably a pro-gun and ultra capitalist current within the transhuman movement. There are Transhuman groups which tend to exclusively attract only people of European descent like Pierces Cosmotheism philosophy-religion which calls itself the National Alliance (digression: this shouldn’t surprise anyone as 99% of the transhuman movement is made up of people primarily of European descent). There are Transhuman groups which have become increasingly popular and represent some of the fastest membership growing organizations and currents in the transhuman movement like Transtopianism, Euvolutionism and Prometheism which appeal to libertarian and third-position types, these being people who find themselves agreeing with and also rejecting some issues from across the entire political continuum of both the left, center and right. The point is there will not be one vector of post-human species, but likely many. The universe is likely to be filled with thousands of post-human species, not just one monotone grey-colored socialist one. The whole rainbow will be expressed in the future and there will be thousands of such exclusive and selective neo-eugenically breeding groups.
The main point I was trying to get across to you, not bully into you is you, is the politically left-wing WTA do not have the final say on who is and who is not a transhuman, because if Jews want to create exclusive Jewish transhuman groups, which only eugenically breed among themselves and only choose to practice neo-eugenics by genetically modify themselves using gene patterns only commonly or primarily found within the Jewish population, the you , WTA and James Hughes has no right to say they are not Transhumanists by instead falsely saying they are in dispute. The world is so much better when it is freer, when people are free to associate and have the freedom of speech and expression to choose their own self-defined destiny as a group and they way they achieve post-human status. No one should take their freedom away, which is why I said the totalitarian regime and agenda of this WTA biased article needed a regime change.
I extend an olive branch to you, to let you know I have or feel no hatred or malice towards you. I actually think for the most part you are reasonably intelligent and have a good understanding and comprehension of transhumanism for the most part. This is not a status game for me, where when I prove you wrong you are less than me. I sense you have a problem with accepting when you are wrong and feel it is a personal attack against you or that it somehow might lower you. I know you want to reject this observation and say this isn’t true – I know you do, but know I don’t feel this way for the record. Just know this is not the case at all from my end, I still hold you in very high regard when you can put your agenda, political views, lack of neutrality and biases aside in this article. You have done a very good job on the transhumanism article for the most part and it deserves at least 7 or 8 stars out of 10 for your tireless efforts. So please know this is not a delicate attack against you, please don’t be neurotic about this whole thing. I respect you whether or not you feel that way about me.
Please also understand I just want a transhuman article on Wikipedia unbiased, even handed, impartial, agenda free and not taking sides, one that does not exclude these increasing popular currents within the transhuman movement by labeling them something false which they are not. Transhumanism is a new fringe movement, a micro-movement at best of techno-cheerleaders on the sideline for future technology.
The world is a much more beautiful place if people have the freedom to choose and have the option to explore these more popular transhuman groups if they wish without them being politically insulted. What makes these groups more popular is that they aren’t dogmatic like the WTA and allow open debate on all issues, thus appeal to a wider audience of people.
A little bit of friendly enlightenment for you. You want to know what transhumanism really is, besides using science and technology to overcome human limitations and improve the human condition…
It is a movement of truly free and progressive people where there are no taboos and no dogmas, and thus people have the right and freedom to choose how they become post humans and with who and why!
There is still so much work to do, especially with so many people like slimvirgin who have an agenda, but life goes on.
I truly wish you the best and extend exceedingly peaceful blessings to you. Dariodario 09:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I completely disagree with everything you said. First of all, the bullying, which consisted of personal attacks and intellectually dishonest arguments, is a matter of record. Secondly, this debate was never about the politics of this article or the WTA, it was about whether or not transhumanism is a partial extention of humanism and whether or not eugenic and racialist views are compatible with transhumanism. Thirdly, the article was never "biased" nor edited according to an "agenda." It accurately reflected the fact that there is a dispute within the transhumanist community and on Wikipedia about the legitimacy of some offshoots. I have argued my case and stand by it. Since this dispute is hopefully inconsequential in the greater scheme of creating public awareness of what transhumanism truly is, I am simply moving on. Loremaster 14:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Truth: You want to know what transhumanism really is, besides using science and technology to overcome human limitations and improve the human condition… It is a movement of truly free and progressive people where there are no taboos and no dogmas, and thus people have the right and freedom to choose how they become post humans and with who and why! Tchardin 17:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Third-party citation needed

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)
+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)
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)

Evolutionary transhumanism

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)

"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)
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)
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)
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)

Fukuyama is not a Conservative?

User Isolani and I seem caught in a minor revert war regarding whether or not Francis Fukuyama is a conservative(!). Although I agree that it is now inaccurate to describe Fukuyama as a neoconservative because of his comments on this subject, I find ridiculous that anyone would argue that he is not a conservative. For example, the following is an excerpt from an article on Fukuyama in the Al-Ahram Weekly:

Fukuyama is undoubtedly one of America's most respected conservative commentators. He sits on the editorial board of The National Interest and the Journal of Democracy. He is a member of the Council of Foreign relations and book review editor of Foreign Affairs. He is on the board of directors of the New America Foundation. His neo-conservative credentials are impeccable, and yet he is willing to concede that the great neo-conservative cause of the moment, the invasion of Iraq, is likely to be seen as a mistake.

Do I really need to say more? --Loremaster 18:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do not consider the Al-Ahram weekly to be a credible academic source. Speaking of ridiculous: I find it ridiculous that you obviously consider it to be so. Fukuyama's thought is deeply imbued by that of Kojeve, (cf. End of History and the Last Man). Kojeve is a thinker not widely considered to be a conservative. F. might perhaps be described as a ' bioconservative' from a transhumanist point of view but this is not the same as a 'conservative', he is at most a Hegelian liberal democrat, not a conservative and least of all a conservative in the american sense of the word.
--Isolani 19:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I never presented Al-Ahram Weekly as an academic source since I don't think an academic source is necessary. If Fukuyama describes his views as American conservative or/and has no problem with other people describing his views as American conservative, a fact that many interviews and articles attest to, I don't see what the problem is. Furthermore, one can be a proponent of liberal democracy and still be conservative on social issues. I am therefore changing the label and internal link to reflect this fact. --Loremaster 19:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
You would thereby inflate the category of conservative into meaninglessness. The fact that he is considered a conservative by x or y does not make him a conservative, the foundations of his philosophy are not conservative, and as you accept that you cannot produce academic proof of the contrary I will, again, remove your accusations, any further rvrt of my edit will be considered vandalism. I am also concerned that you do not respond to the link Kojeve - Fukuyama which effectively disproves any accusation of conservatism. You are either therefore either ignorant of the subject, or acting in bad faith. --Isolani 20:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
*sigh* Your zealousness and wild accusations puzzle me. I am well aware of the fact that Fukuyama is a Hegelian liberal democrat inspired by Kojeve. However, this does not change the fact that Fukuyama's views on social issues can be legitimately described as conservative. I haven't provided you with academic proof only because I am currently busy at the moment working on more important things than this trivial matter. Although I stand by everything I have said, since Fukuyama and Bailey are the only two people in this article whose social/cultural/political leaning are mentioned, I've decided to remove these labels for the sake of consistancy. Every user of Wikipedia who has dealt with me knows that I never act in bad faith. The end. --Loremaster 20:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I`m glad that this is the end of the matter, I can concur with you calling him a 'bioconservative' but please refrain from making statements such as "I find ridiculous that anyone would argue that he is not a conservative"; they insult my intelligence, esp. if all you can come up with a newspaper controlled by the Egyptian government. If you ever revisit this issue, pls. announce this on the talk page.
Very well, the end. --Isolani 22:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
For the record, 1) I googled the words 'Fukuyama' and 'conservative' and found many links to better sources but quickly settle on that one because it was well-articulated and covered all the points I wanted to make. 2) The Egyptian government, and the media they control, is far from having a liberal bias (however you define the term). 3) I've found the way you approached this dispute to be most uncivil rather than being diplomatic. 4) I made the comment that you found insulting because I felt provoked. That being said, I still consider it ridiculous that anyone would argue that Fukuyama is not a social conservative (however you define the term). --Loremaster 22:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
No matter how you define the word 'end' I consider this dispute over. Your insistence on carrying this matter through suggests a more personal motivation. I`m seriously wondering if you were not 'provoked' by the simple fact of someone disagreeing with you. I refuse to add any more words to this matter. --Isolani 23:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
*sigh* Dude, your revert war and your insistence on including insulting insinuations and accusations in all your messages are what provoked me. The truth is that it is your modus operandi that suggests a personal motivation. Why would anyone be so zealous about making sure no one calls Fukuyama a neoconservative or conservative in an article about a fringe subject like transhumanism? --Loremaster 02:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
because it's wrong, maybe you don`t care about truthfulness, but I do. May I remind you that YOU started reverting MY edits without offering acceptable reasons? (such as 'He is a conservative because he is clearly a conservative'! --Isolani 08:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
My point is that I disagree that it is wrong. Of course truthfulness is important to me (again with the snide insinuations), however, I think this issue did not warrant the animosity you brought to it. Edit summary boxes are not best way to discuss an issue especially when someone like you uses them to insult others (such as 'are you sure you are not out of your depth?') but more importantly when they didn't offer acceptable reasons for their edits (such as 'there is no reason to consider Fukuyama a " conservative"'). This is why I brought this issue to the talk page in order to talk this out like adults who don't resort to insults to make their point. --Loremaster 19:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, --Isolani 19:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, Fukuyama is almost universally considered to be a conservative: someone who values and is deeply respectful of the traditions of his society, such as its mores, major religious institutions, and conception of family life. A good example is Edmund Burke. Why is Fukuyama seen this way? It's because all his well-known writings display a deferential attitude to these things on almost every page. For example, he is absolutely at pains not to be disrespectful of religion, even though he does not commit himself to any particular religious belief. The opposite of a conservative is a radical, and Fukuyama is no radical - I could not imagine him writing about all the above-mentioned things in the iconoclastic mode of, say, Bertrand Russell or Richard Dawkins. Accordingly, it was accurate, and not very controversial, to call him a conservative thinker. That said, it doesn't really matter all that much for the purpose of this article. I suppose what has been lost is something of the nuance that conservative thinkers are likely to be suspicious of transhumanism, since it is sanguine about - or even advocates - massive, technology-driven social change. Then again, that is probably implicit so I don't suggest any further change unless Isolani wants to offer something in the light of my comments. Peace. Metamagician3000 00:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I would not consider Fukuyama a conservative for the simple reason that his philosophical foundations differ wildly from anything conservatives (as Burke) have on offer (cf. Kojeve link). The End of History etc. is not a conservative piece of philosophy, even though it does not by defintion disparage traditional cultural institutions. It would be intellectually quite sloppy to confuse the positions of F. and Burke. In this respect, the link to Hegel looks more relevant. I would consider F. a Hegelian, to an extent, but Hegel was not a conservative either. (cf. Hegel and the Modern State by Shlomo Avineri.) At most I would agree to F. being considered a Communitarian, a position often confused with, but not necessarily implying, conservatism. I will easily concede that he is not a radical, but that does not, in itself, make him a conservative. And I would consider it unwarranted to describe him as such, regardless of his involvement in certain semi-political organizations as such memberships have no bearing on his theoretical position. --Isolani 00:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Isolani, do you actually believe that none of Francis Fukuyama's views can be legitimately described as social conservative? --Loremaster 02:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
No, that is not what I am saying. But even an over-all progressive may have individual views that are socially conservative. The question is whether he may legitimately be described as a conservative thinker. I argue that that is, at least, a contentious statement, and probably, imho, not justified. For now, I suggest you respond to my argument above. If you're not willing to do so (seeing your repeated observations as to how this is 'a trivial matter' and I , of course understand you have better things to do) pls. don`t revisit this argument. --Isolani 08:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I talked this over today with some of my friends who are (like me) aficianados of political philosophy. I think we all agreed in the end that Fukuyama takes some socially conservative positions but that he does have theoretical roots which cannot be described simply as "conservative". I care more about positions than theoretical underpinnings when I categorise people, but categorising at all is dangerous.
So in the end I think Isolani is quite right that it's contentious to refer to him as a conservative thinker, at least without a lot of qualification and so on that we can't attempt here. Although I also think that Loremaster and all those other people (in the media and so on) who have applied the c-word to him have a point, it's not something anyone could insist on (and to be fair about all this Loremaster hasn't insisted on it; aren't we now just having a discussion, the better to understand our fellow wikipedians?). Metamagician3000 08:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Metamagician, Thank you for your "good offices" in this dispute. --Isolani 08:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)