Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

1 Length
2 Nuremberg argument?
3 Playing God argument?
- 3.1 Trying to settle the wording of the Playing God argument
4 Transhumanism and religious aspirations
5 Use of Humanism template
6 The Return of the Transtopian
7 Notes
8 Peer Review?
9 Playing God Image
10 Christian transhumanists and "playing God"
11 GA
12 Notes and References
13 Brave New World argument section
14 Theory and practice
15 Th in fiction
16 Playing God argument image
17 Digitalism

Length

Hmmm... interesting article, but it really neads to be tauter. More generalizing and less specific details and jargon. But seeing how it's such an active topic, I don't want to be too bold coming right in here... The lead should be broadened, and the History and each of the specific criticisms should be tightened up as well, in my opinion. Any thoughts? zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I appreciate you removing some unnecessary internal links, please read Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 5 before making any major edit. We've worked hard to get this article at the quality level that it currently is. However, I agree that the lead should be broadened but I think the rest of the article is relatively fine. We are currently working on adding two new arguments in the Criticisms section (see below). --Loremaster 03:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to lose any of this material, but it's getting awfully long. How much longer can it get? If we keep identifying and discussing more and more arguments, I wonder whether we might not get to a point where it's useful to reduce the "arguments against" to a summary, while putting the full material about these arguments in a separate article with appropriate cross-references. Part of the problem is that there is no obvious limit to the number of arguments that might be identified. I'm not pressing for this yet, but there must come a point when we say (in Bill McKibben's wording) "Enough!" if more and more arguments get identified. I think it's unusual for an article to have such a comprehensive discussion of the arguments against a concept that forms the topic of an article. Metamagician3000 12:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Libertarianism article has spawned a Criticism of libertarianism article. I've been thinking for a while that this might be an example we could follow. --Loremaster 00:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that this article remain self-contained. With the ample TH rejoinders in each of the Criticisms section adding additional justification of the philosophy, anyone new to the subject will get a rounded view of the subject, with, most likely, whatever objections that occur to them raised and, if perhaps not allayed, at least addressed.--StN 16:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer self-containment as well. However, this means that we will regularly have to justify to other contributors the exclusion of new arguments in the criticisms section. --Loremaster 19:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I expanded the lead. Anything more might be redundant. --Loremaster 22:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think there's room to improve. It seems the first sentence is a basic overview, the next sentence references the academic nature, the third sentence is a basic history, and the fourth sentence contains two quotes, for and against. The reader gets a basic idea of the what, but not so much of the how. Another sentence (more specific than the hint at the end of the second sentence) summing up the theory and practice section - that is, how exactly transhumanism proposes to improve the "human condition" - may be helpful. In addition, I think a full sentence in the lead on criticism of transhumanism is necessary based on the length and detail of the criticism section.

Also, organizing the lead into two paragraphs (perhaps, sentences 1, 2, and my proposed theory and practice sentence; 3, 4 and my proposed criticism sentence) might be good for readability - a better mix of text and white space. In addition, that mass of white space caused by the table of contents section is pretty ugly. I've never liked the move-the-ToC-into-the-body solution to this frequent problem, but maybe it could be shortened somehow? (If you end up choosing to split off the Criticism section, that could help solve that. If the link section could be consolidated and trimmed, that could help as well.) Another option is making the lead picture bigger, which would be nice, IMO. (For that matter, enlarging the Imtech image might be nice as well. Either the digitalism or moon picture might be moved the left - again, just for how it looks).

I have one more issue with the article: the prose is very dense. Particularly the Theory and Practice and Currents sections could use improvement. By dense, I mean hard to read, hard to get through, hard to understand. The article is filled with Latin-root words and has few Germanic words. When there are technical terms, you have to use them. But otherwise, in general, go simple. For example,

On a more practical level, as proponents of personal development and body modification, transhumanists tend to use existing technologies and techniques that supposedly improve cognitive and physical performance, while engaging in routines and lifestyles designed to improve health and longevity.

and

To this end, transhumanists engage in interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and evaluating possibilities for overcoming biological limitations.

are particularly overcomplex sentences about fairly simple ideas. Watch out for euphemisms, and get material. I think Fermi paradox is a good example of an article that discusses a lofty topic in straight talk. It's long, but it's really interesting to read, whereas here I can imagine the average reader zoning out in large parts of this article.

So that's my critique - the lead, the aesthetics, and the jargon. Take what you will of it and run. Even right now I think the article would get a pretty good showing at FAC. zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all your comments and suggestions except for the Currents section. Although it, like all things, can be improved, I don't find hard to read at all. --Loremaster 18:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Many changes have been made to the article which reflect most of your suggestions. --Loremaster 16:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nuremberg argument?

Employing a combination of practical and ethical considerations, Newman has also argued that since cloning and germline genetic manipulation of animals are error-prone and inherently disruptive of development, it would be unethical to apply them to human embryos in pursuit of Transhumanist goals. Performing experiments, particularly ones with permanent biological consequences, on developing humans, it is asserted, would thus be in violation of the Nuremberg Principles governing research on human subjects. Moreover, because improvements in experimental outcomes in one species are not automatically transferable to a new species without further experimentation, there is no basis for informed consent for such experiments on the part of prospective parents and therefore no ethical route to genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages.<ref>Newman 2003</ref>

I temporarily removed User:StN's text from the article to analyze it and provide a transhumanist rebuttal, which Gregory Stock offers. --Loremaster 17:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are difficulties that any sensible moral or policy discourse would want to take into account here. But I have [many] worries, especially given what I take to be the utterly inappropriate ond outright obfuscatory arrival of Nuremberg onto this scene in more and more discussions of this kind these days.

Biological life and reproduction is always already disruptive and error-prone. To the extent that deliberation can yield safeguards and standards that diminish the dangers and cost and increase the emancipatory promise of these procedures of course techno-progressives are the first to demand it (I agree, for example, that human reproductive cloning remains too dangerous for now and should be banned until it is considerably safer) -- but this insight cannot be deployed to advocate a repudiation or disinvention of medicine as such, which has always been risky and experimental, in the name of a defense of life that denies life as it actually exists.

Performing experiments, particularly ones with permanent biological consequences, on developing humans, it is asserted, would thus be in violation of the Nuremberg Principles governing research on human subjects.

Bad news boys, every human being on earth is always already ineradicably embedded in a vast life-long experiment to determine the combinatorial effects of medical interventions in a rapidly and radically changing medical state of the art, imbricated in bioremedial networks in a civilization-wide peer-to-peer research program in morphological freedom. We're not yet compensated as we should be for our indispensable contributions to that program, but we technoprogressive advocates for BIG and universal health care are working on it. Experimental subjection is continuous with late modern subjectivity as such -- to repudiate it is to pine after a disinvention of civilization as such. (Which, it pays to remember, is what bioconservatism amounts to anyway, as *all* conservativisms do: struggles to stall or derail the rise of democratic civilization in order to defend the rule of the elites with whom conservatives and biconservatives happen to identify.)

Moreover, because improvements in experimental outcomes in one species are not automatically transferable to a new species without further experimentation, there is no basis for informed consent for such experiments on the part of prospective parents and therefore no ethical route to genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages.

The complex application of general principles to specific individuals in their variation is not an argument against informed consent but the condition in which and because of which the idea is implemented in the first place. The standard for "informed consent" is not omniscience. I really enjoyed that "no basis" claim here. If there is "no basis" for the application to changed circumstances of warranted assertions then one wonders how it is possible to earn the "therefore" that follows a few words along. Yes, Hume, every deduction is saturated with prior inductions. And yet, look at that, science works tolerably well. Perhaps this isn't the broadly epistemological skepticism claim I am taking it for, but one about inter-species experimentation jumbled curiously into claims about inter-*generational* results -- in which case I don't follow it all (but I will sometimes sympathize with arguments about inter-species experimental inapplicability to justify some bans on nonhuman animal experimentation on a case by case basis).

But you just gotta love these bioconservatives, tho: Defending life as some kind of error-free stasis unconnected to life as it exists. Defending civilization in the form of a nostalgic pastoral fantasy unconnected to biomedical civilization as it exists. Asserting standards through a denial of the contingent abstraction on the basis of which standards are warranted and deployed as they exist. -Dale Carrico

I have to agree with Dr. Carrico. However, I think the so-called Nuremberg argument should be retitled and rephrased or merged with the Frankenstein argument. Either way, it should be added to the article only after transhumanist rebuttal is written. --Loremaster 20:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Nuremberg argument is not "so-called" any more than any of the arguments are so-called, and it is not the same as the Frankenstein argument. It is phrased to accurately reflect the views of those in agreement with it. The formulation "it is asserted" is used here for neutrality. Dale Carrico, Gregory Stock and other advocates of Transhumanism who do not agree with it have the option of inserting rebuttals. A general disinclination to invoke the Nuremberg Principles is not a sufficient reason to keep this position out of the article, nor is the claim that the hazards of reproduction, or of existence in general, are equivalent to, and thus justify, uncontrolled experimentation on the human germline. --StN 10:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Dale Carrico may be an advocate of morphological freedom and procreative liberty but he is not an advocate of transhumanism. --Loremaster 16:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to be very careful here. The Nuremberg Code was developed in the context of a response to the horrific experiments of Mengele et. al. under Nazism. It's well known among bioethicists that the Code's principles would have a lot of consequences not intended at the time if interpreted literally, and they have been superseded by other instruments, despite their historical importance. The main international instrument is now not the Nuremberg Code but the Declaration of Helsinki (this is what people try to amend from time to time, sometimes successfully), while many jurisdictions rely more on such documents as the Belmont Report and various national or local codes, which do differ. It is the latter that will most affect working researchers. Furthermore, situations involving genetic modification are just the sorts of situations where there might be no cruelty involved, and no killing of anything with personhood. A literal application of the Nuremberg Code could be especially wrongheaded here.

If someone wanted to rely on the literal application of the Nuremberg Code, it would be an eccentric, minority POV even among opponents of transhumanism. For that reason, calling this "The Nuremberg argument" is misleading. It conjures up images of Nazi Germany while also suggesting to that its proponents are naive about the way bioethical regulation has developed since the Nuremberg trials.

HOWEVER, all that said, there is a genuine problem here and I'm sure most transhumanist-sympathetic thinkers acknowledge it. I'm not sure I can follow everything that Dale is saying here, and I think I may have to respectfully disagree with some of it (but maybe not if I'm not properly following it ... and anyway my POV is not what matters - the important thing is to try to identify the arguments, their notability, etc.).

The problem is this: regardless which particular bioethical code is relied on, there is an ethical barrier to performing at least some of the research that some transhumanists might wish to see done. I.e. there's a vicious circle: you can't do the research all the way to creating a genetically enhanced human being until it is, in a reasonably familiar sense, safe to do so, but you can't make it safe to do so until you such research. Catch 22. (I'd actually prefer to call this The Catch-22 argument, though I'm conscious that all these names are a bit gimmicky, and are really more expressions of our creativity than the labels actually used by the individuals concerned or their detractors).

If that is the guts of Newman's objection, I think that reasonable transhumanists would have to agree that it's a real problem. We could probably even find cases where some of them concede this. Perhaps that's all that need be said in response - transhumanists see a technical problem here but think it is shortsighted to claim it will never be overcome.

But there might be more. I certainly can't rule out that there could be a technical way around the problem with future science. If it actually is possible to overcome the kind of combinatorial problems raised by Steven Pinker, Steve Jones, and so on, there might also be ways of doing so without initially relying on dangerous experiments. By the time the experiments are done, the balance to the child of risk and possible utility may favour it. It's not easy (at least for me) to see just how this will happen, since I'm actually very impressed by the Pinker/Jones type of argument, but I can't rule it out - particularly since I don't think we should be talking in terms of decades as Kurzweil does, but possibly in terms of centuries. Someone like Stock does seem to be the sort of person who would be able to respond with some degree of confidence - if anyone can - that there may yet be ways to avoid the Catch 22 situation I've described, though perhaps not quickly. I do think it would be worth looking at Stock's work to see what he says about this sort of thing.

I need to take a break from here, I think. I hope these comments are of some use to you all. Metamagician3000 11:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Metamagician. Although the gist of Newman's argument should be expressed in the article since many academics and laymen believe it, I think calling this argument Nuremberg and/or mentioning the Nuremberg Code in the argument is inappropriate (in light of the consensus around the greater relevance of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Belmont Report) but also extremely loaded language. --Loremaster 19:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The current naming of these are arguments is not entirely a gimmick. Both transhumanist James Hughes and anti-transhumanist Dr. Dale Layman have used the expression 'Terminator argument' in their writings while transhumanist sympathizer Russel Blackford and countless numbers of writers critical of transhumanism have used the expression 'Brave New World argument' or simply 'Brave New World' in their writings. Since I find it compelling to make sure all these arguments are named after books or movies that have explored and popularized the issues involved in these arguments, it's another reason why Nuremberg does not fit in this scheme. --Loremaster 04:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it with you folks for now. Metamagician3000 00:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Once this is resolved, the Transhumanism article will be ready for its close-up. --Loremaster 04:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is a consensus that the section title "Nuremberg argument" is inappropriate, I suggest using the title "Human experimentation argument" followed by the text at the beginning of this section (modified as below) and Transhumanist rejoinders.

Employing a combination of practical and ethical considerations, Newman has also argued that since cloning and germline genetic manipulation of animals are error-prone and inherently disruptive of development, it would be inappropriate to apply them to human embryos in pursuit of Transhumanist goals. Performing experiments, particularly ones with permanent biological consequences, on developing humans, it is asserted, would thus be in violation of accepted principles governing research on human subjects [link to http://www.nihtraining.com/ohsrsite/guidelines/helsinki.html]. Moreover, because improvements in experimental outcomes in one species are not automatically transferable to a new species without further experimentation, there is no basis for informed consent for such experiments on the part of prospective parents and therefore no ethical route to genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages.<ref>Newman 2003</ref> --StN 01:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Popping in to give my two cents' worth.*

Something like "Human experimentation argument" seems fair enough to me. I tend to see this more as a practical argument, or at least as likely to be viewed that way by transhumanists. It doesn't challenge transhumanist goals, but it puts a powerful barrier in the path of achieving them by ethically acceptable means, and the ethical principles themselves are not really in dispute. I suppose some transhumanists just might say, in a cavalier manner, "The end justifies the means here," but I doubt that that would be their typical answer. They really would feel that this is a constraint on their methods, the timeframe for achieving certain of their goals, etc., etc. Perhaps we could develop methods of genetic enhancement relatively quickly if we started aggressively researching this by bringing babies to term with various kinds of genetic modifications - then we could see how they turn out! *Evil mad scientist laugh.* But I don't know of anyone who actually suggests such a research program. In one sense, this makes it a strawman argument (if it is directed at transhumanist moral positions). On the other hand, it does seem to shift the burden onto transhumanist sympathisers to give at least some idea of how their goals can be achieved in the real world. Metamagician3000 01:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I also see Loremaster's point about using a literary or movie title here for parallelism with the other subsections. I just don't think "Catch-22" is exactly right; the other titles refer to works that actually deal with the subject at hand. --StN 03:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on "Hubris" defines it as "a reckless and violent disregard for the personal space of another person resulting in some kind of social degradation for the victim." This captures the essence of the argument stated here. Although hubris is not a specific work, it is a classic literary theme. "Hubris argument" would be a good choice for the section title. --StN 04:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually think that is a bad definition of hubris. I must look at the article. It really means overweaning pride, or acting as if you are a god. That might be a good title for some of the other arguments against transhumanism, but not this one. I'd stick in some way with talking about the problems of ethical experimentation on humans. Metamagician3000 05:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The definition I quoted was the ancient one, listed first in the article. It is particularly relevant to the argument under consideration. But even the defintion that you provide, listed as the modern sense of the term in the article, characterizes Transhumanism in the eyes of some critics who are concerned about taking irreversible steps based on poor information. The Hubris article mentions that the modern usage is taken as a virtue by some technologists. This would provide an opening for the pro-TH response to this argument.--StN 06:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: The Nuremberg argument has become the Playing God argument. --Loremaster 16:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Playing God argument?

Two other possibilities for subsection title: "'Playing God' argument"; "'Can't Get There From Here' argument". Neither of them is particularly literary, of course, but the second one is a punchline of an old joke and the title of an REM song.--StN 18:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Playing God (morality) argument is actually a very good suggestion! (I'm shocked that I didn't think of it myself). Let's write and edit all these arguments here before including them in the article to avoid a dispute. --Loremaster 21:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Playing God" sounds okay, though we'll have to be careful - it could mean various things, just like hubris. But I say go with it. :) Meanwhile I'm now embroiled in discussion on the hubris talk page. Metamagician3000 13:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Who is the best source for the Playing God argument? Surely the new Pope said something we can use here.

2. Do we have any sources for a transhumanist rebuttal to the Playing God argument?

--Loremaster 03:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Newman article currently on the reference list is the most detailed scientific critique available of the transhumanist enterprise. It makes a case against humans playing God (though not in those exact terms) by reference to evolutionary complexity, not (as the Pope presumably would) to the prerogatives of an actual God. Unless this article is going to review religious objections to transhumanism (and religious advocacy of it, which there is a good deal of; indeed a good case can be made that transhumanism has more in common with religious perfectionism than with humanism), it might be best to stay with the scientific arguments. Transhumanist responses to the scientific critique can be found in Gregory Stock's writings, an example of which is currently on the reference list, and in "From Chance to Choice" by Buchanan et al.: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521669774/qid=1142486175/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/104-0992966-6224705?s=books&v=glance&n=283155 Since I am not persuaded by these views, it would be better for someone sympathetic to transhumanism to consult these sources and write the response.--StN 05:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. We can't base every argument against transhumanism on Newman's opinions especially since the transhumanist enterprise is NOT limited to genetic engineering. The ethical criticism of human experimentaion and pratical criticism of evolutionary complexity are valid issues but they should not be conflated with religious objections to transhumanism, which have a legitimate place in this article in light of the fact that many religious groups are extremely critical of transhumanism. --Loremaster 08:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"We can't base every argument against transhumanism on Newman's opinions" is a bit harsh. Out of the seven or so existing Criticisms subsections, Newman is mentioned (along with Rifkin) only for the "Frankenstein" argument. For this section it would be the scientific (developmental-evolutionary) arguments. Maybe there are other good sources for the latter. If so, they should be cited as well. If you read the last post carefully you will see that I specifically wanted to avoid conflating the scientific with the religious arguments against transhumanism. One way of doing this is to avoid religious arguments, which up till now were not broached in any of the various Criticisms subsections. The original "Nuremberg" subsection was introduced to deal with the human experimentation issue and the connection it forged between practical and ethical criticisms. There was nothing religious about it, until the "Playing God" title was taken up, with the obvious religious connection. But the two arguments are quite different, and handling them in the same subsection would do what you recommend against, above. However, if religious criticisms are described, preferaably in a separate section (but then "Playing God" might be confusing for this one), it would be important to deal with the religious arguments in favor of transhumanism by writers such as Ted Peters, and even by groups such as the Raelians and Heaven's Gate. Expanding the discourse in this way, however (your idea, not mine!), would tend to undermine the claims of Transhumanists to be avatars of a progressive, secular scientific culture. --StN 16:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought you were proposing a new argument focusing on religious objections to transhumanism rather than simply renaming the Nuremberg argument. That being said, I think your bias against transhumanism is undermining your understanding of the subject.

Transhumanism is 1) the intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities; and 2) the study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.

There is nothing religious about wanting to improve the world using emerging technologies nor studying the pros and cons of these technologies. The worse it can be accused of is scientism. The fact that are some or even many transhumanists who hold some transhumanist theories as quasi-religious dogmas does not make transhumanism a religion no more than the fact that many communists hold some communist ideas as religious dogmas makes communism a religion. Futhermore, the fact that there are religious arguments for transhumanism does not in any way undermine the claim that transhumanism is a progressive secular scientific culture any more than the fact that there are many religions which embrace the seperation of church and state or scientific inquiry undermine secularism or science.

Also, simply supporting human genetic engineering or human enhancement does make one a transhumanist nor does opposing human genetic engineering or human enhancement make one an anti-transhumanist. We should all be careful not to contribute to this confusion. --Loremaster 18:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION - COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God This 2002 Vatican statement that Pope Benedict approved could a source for the Playing God argument. The SciAm Perpectives site talks about the subject. --Loremaster 19:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"There is nothing religious about wanting to improve the world using emerging technologies nor studying the pros and cons of these technologies." Quite right, but there is nothing specifically transhumanist about it either. See if you can find anything in writings of the critics of transhumanism above, Fukuyama, Rifkin, etc., that would suggest disagreement with these precepts. Opponents of transhumanism are concerned primarily with permanent changes in the biology of future generations and, to a lesser extent, societal addiction to performance- altering drugs. Ill-conceived or experimental things that people may do to their own bodies do not generally inspire tracts against transhumanism, though they may invoke calls for restrictions on false advertising of medicines and regulation of the medical profession. Has there been any public criticism of Raymond Kurzweil's dietary habits? More power to him. You say that my "bias against transhumanism is undermining your understanding of the subject." I suggest that your advocacy of it inclines you to uncritically identify it with truth and progress and to miss the ways it diverges from other philosophies that also lay claim to these values. Certain Western religious traditions: Christian ones of man's stewardship over the created world and status of co-creator, Jewish ones of the injunction (taken to an extreme) to use knowledge to extend life, underlie the transhumanist imperative, in my view. This is not to say that transhumanism is simply a religious ideology. Regarding this article, there seems to be a consensus that the human experimentation relative to future generations issue should be part of it. If the religious criticisms are also raised (I don't feel strongly one way or the other about this), then to ensure a NPOV the religious affinities of transhumanism should be mentioned as well, so as not to give the impression that transhumanism is nothing more than the way forward out of a superstitious past.--StN 20:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What seems to be needed now is a Transhumanist rebuttal to the Playing God argument, as stated above, and incorporation of this section into the article.--StN 20:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a transhumanist. I simply stumbled upon the subject while doing research on the cyberpunk culture and found it fascinating. Since then I've been researching transhumanism as much as I can to contribute to a better Wikipedia article. Although I support many (but not all) the goals of transhumanism, I'm actually quite critical of the movement itself. That being said, from what I've read, many transhumanists would love to get support from established religious groups to demonstrate that transhumanism and religion are not or don't have to be enemies. (Faith, Transhumanism and Hope Symposium, a WTA conference). Many want to acknowlege and even celebrate the religious affinities you allude to. I have no problem with including religious arguments for transhumanism since some transhumanist leaders think that it actually strenghtens rather than undermines their cause. However, it is very POV to imply that only Judeo-Christian traditions underlie the transhumanist imperative. This is what you will find resistance to from me and others contributors to this article. --Loremaster 21:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, many people forget or are simply unaware of the religious dimensions of Renaissance Humanism, the precursor of modern Secular Humanism. --Loremaster 01:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this, but writings by the economist Amartya Sen, for example (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374105839/qid=1142738504/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-0992966-6224705?s=books&v=glance&n=283155), show how other, non-Western, cultures, pioneered concepts that would generally be counted as humanistic well before the Renaissance. It is well-known that Islam also represented liberalizing tendencies relative to the prevailing Middle East, and Western, cultures at its inception. (These things have their ups and downs on all sides, of course.) These other cultural traditions are not necessarily on a convergent course with the Western drive to transform the world by technology, virtually at any cost. Others may disagree with this, but with respect to the current article, there is a general atmosphere of Transhumanism as the straightforward application of science to human biology, with no suggestion of the religious roots or influences on secular humanism. (See the last sentence of the article, for example.) In fact, most contemporary organisations that espouse humanism (e.g., the IHEU, many of whose members also support Transhumanism: http://www.iheu.org/node/1250/print ) are largely skeptical and atheistic. I believe many transhumanists would object to being seen as inheritors of Western religious tendencies that put them, in common with 19th century missionary-imperialists, on a destructive course. But if the religious dimensions of TH are taken up in this piece, balance would require that this perception of the movement (and not just the criticism of traditional religionists) be noted.--StN 03:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)--StN 03:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

How about under "Playing God argument" something like the following: This criticism takes two forms: a secular objection based on the profound complexity of the products of biological evolution and the inherent unpredictability of attempts to guide their development, and a religious objection based on the inappropriateness of humans substituting themselves for an existing God. The first version is exemplified by [add some version of the original text currently archived in the Nuremberg argument section.] The second version is exemplified [add summary of Vatican statement, above.] [Add TH rejoinders to both arguments, with some comment to the effect that while most transhumanists self-identify as secularists, some see themselves (and are seen by their critics) as promulgating values of perfectionism and purification traditionally promoted by certain religious tendencies.]--StN 02:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Sounds good but, if you can and want to, write the full text here so we debate it. --Loremaster 03:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This criticism takes two forms: a secular objection based on the profound complexity of the products of biological evolution and the unpredictability of attempts to guide their development, and a religious objection based on the inappropriateness of humans substituting themselves for an actual God. The first version is exemplified by the argument that since cloning and germline genetic manipulation of animals are error-prone and inherently disruptive of development, it would be inappropriate to apply them to human embryos in pursuit of Transhumanist goals. Performing experiments, particularly ones with permanent biological consequences, on developing humans, it is asserted, would thus be in violation of accepted principles governing research on human subjects (Declaration of Helsinki). Moreover, because improvements in experimental outcomes in one species are not automatically transferable to a new species without further experimentation, there is claimed to be no ethical route to genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages.^[1] The second version is exemplified by the 2002 Vatican statement "Human Persons Created in the Image of God," in which it is stated 'Changing the genetic identity of man as a human person through the production of an infrahuman being is radically immoral,' implying, as it would, that 'man has full right of disposal over his own biological nature.' Transhumanists reject both these arguments...[to be added]. With respect to the relationship between Transhumanism and religion, while most transhumanists self-identify as secularists, some see themselves (and are seen by their critics) as promulgating values of perfectionism and purification traditionally promoted by certain religious tendencies.]--StN 05:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good start. I will let Metamagician fill in the blanks cause my brain is too busy for the new few days to think about this.--Loremaster 18:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the logic of the first argument could be cleared up and reworded. As I understand it (without agreeing with it), how about for the secular argument:

New paragraph then for the rebuttals, which could start something like:

Transhumanists reject both these arguments. One argument against the secular objection is that all technologies bear some risk, that society already accepts some degree of uncertainty when testing any medical procedure in humans (or testing any technology at all), and that the benefits to be gained outweigh any harm, especially in the treatment of disease. They also assert that the balancing of ethical concerns is a decision best left to individuals and not to governments.

Is this useful? Might be better to put the two objections in separate paragraphs, too. And how about replacing "genetic manipulation" with the more neutral "genetic alteration" to remove the negative tone? (I'd prefer "engineering," but that's got somewhat of a positive slant.) --Kris Schnee 22:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read your version yet but I hope you have citable sources for your transhumanist counter-arguments and are not just offering your personal opinion... --Loremaster 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: the counter-arguments, see for instance the World Transhumanist Association:

"Transhumanists uphold the principles of bodily autonomy and procreative liberty. Parents must be allowed to choose for themselves whether to reproduce, how to reproduce, and what technological methods they use in their reproduction. The use of genetic medicine or embryonic screening to increase the probability of a healthy, happy, and multiply talented child is a responsible and justifiable application of parental reproductive freedom. Beyond this, one can argue that parents have a moral responsibility to make use of these methods, assuming they are safe and effective... This, however, is a moral judgment that is best left to individual conscience rather than imposed by law. Only in extreme and unusual cases might state infringement of procreative liberty be justified." [1]

"Transhumanists advocate individual freedom, especially the right for those who so wish to use technology... Saving lives (of those who want to live) is ethically important... On average, 150,000 men, women, and children die every day, often in miserable conditions. In order to give as many people as possible the chance of a posthuman existence – or even just a decent human existence – it is paramount that technological development, in at least some fields, is pursued with maximal speed." [2]

And: "Isn’t this tampering with nature? Absolutely, and it is nothing to be ashamed of. It is often right to tamper with nature. One could say that manipulating nature is an important part of what civilization and human intelligence is all about; we have been doing it since the invention of the wheel." [3]

The emphasis in the cited document seems to be a bit different though: not so much that "all technologies bear some risk," as that current environmental and resource problems are bigger risks than an attempt to solve them would be. Eg., "Transhumanists can in fact make a stronger claim regarding the environment: that current technologies are unsustainable." [4]

--Kris Schnee 23:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Let's wait for Metamagician to have his say. --Loremaster 02:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Will get back to this in the next day or so. Metamagician3000 02:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll make use of some of Kris Schnee's work above. Metamagician3000 07:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Trying to settle the wording of the Playing God argument

Let's have a new heading for this, as it might get messy. Metamagician3000 03:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal (proposed reply still to be reviewed and finalised; I'm fairly happy with the wording of the argument itself):

"Playing God" criticisms take two main forms, secular and theological.

The first form is aimed mainly at attempts to pursue transhumanist goals by way of genetically modifying human embryos. It emphasizes the profound complexity of the products of biological evolution and the unpredictability of attempts to guide their development. This approach is exemplified by an argument that the cloning and germline genetic manipulation of animals are error-prone and inherently disruptive of development. Accordingly, it would create unacceptable risks to apply such processes to human embryos. Performing experiments, particularly ones with permanent biological consequences, on developing humans, would thus be in violation of accepted principles governing research on human subjects (Declaration of Helsinki). Moreover, because improvements in experimental outcomes in one species are not automatically transferable to a new species without further experimentation, there is claimed to be no ethical route to genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages.^[3]

Theological objections are based on the alleged inappropriateness of humans substituting themselves for an actual God. This approach is exemplified by the 2002 Vatican statement "Human Persons Created in the Image of God," in which it is stated that, "Changing the genetic identity of man as a human person through the production of an infrahuman being is radically immoral," implying, as it would, that "man has full right of disposal over his own biological nature."

Transhumanists do not entirely reject the first argument — which relates to a relatively narrow aspect of their larger project — insofar as there is a high degree of uncertainty about the likely outcomes of genetic modification experiments in humans. However, many are not convinced that this will always remain the case. They suggest that the balance of risks could eventually favour genetically modifying embryos, if there is a high probability of producing a healthy, happy, and multiply talented child. Beyond this, some transhumanists argue that parents have a moral responsibility to make use of these methods, assuming they are safe and effective. This, however, is a moral judgment that is best left to individual conscience rather than imposed by law. Only in extreme and unusual cases might state infringement of procreative liberty be justified." [1] [para to be reviewed and perhaps enlarged]

Transhumanists reject the second argument 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, it is not morally binding on non-believers and is worthless as a political argument.

...[ para to be reviewed and perhaps enlarged]. Metamagician3000 07:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll continue working on my draft of a proposed reply, taking into account everyone's wisdom, as and when I can. Meanwhile the above is something like what I'd like to be able to write if I can document that this is indeed what transhumanists say in response. :) Metamagician3000 07:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate help from Loremaster or anyone else in documenting the response that I've formulated. It's what I think any sensible transhumanist would say, from having hung around with them, but I have no specific sources for it at the moment. I don't want to put up my own original research on this. Metamagician3000 00:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I will try to work on this during the week. However, since I am very busy, others should feel free to do it. --Loremaster 17:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and inserted a version of the playing God argument, using the material discussed here with some very minor tweaking. I put it in what seemed to me the most logical place. If anyone wants to refine my version (it'll probably need some refinement), then feel free. Metamagician3000 23:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of notes in the argument that I can't quickly work out - they came from StN's work on this page. Maybe he could help me here. Metamagician3000 23:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, StN. There is another note that I think came from Loremaster. I'm not sure that any notes are needed on what I've said in reply to the religious version of the argument. I've ended up referring to what secular bioethicists think, rather than to a specific transhumanist source, because the objection to this literal kind of "God's will" argument goes far beyond transhumanists. Metamagician3000 02:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for illustration for this section: http://www.deeperwants.com/cul1/homeworlds/journal/archives/photos/shock01.jpg --StN 05:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How is an image about the War in Iraq relevant to the Playing God argument when it comes to the issue of genetic engineering???

The following would be better:

http://www.christis.org.uk/archive/issue79/cover.jpg

http://www.lutheransforlife.org/images/Catalog%20graphics/Playing%20God%20-%20Redesigning%20Life%20(C-75).jpg

--Loremaster 21:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny, an image on the war in Iraq seem to me a perfect choice for the common aspects of the various Playing God arguments: the inadvisability of attempting to make global changes in complex systems based on limited information and poor theoretical understanding. At least this is how the critics see it. I won't press this unless there is a groundswell in favor of my position. The two book covers Loremaster recommends, however, do not visually convey the argument except by their titles, although the books themselves are probably relevant. The NASA man-on-the moon image as an argument for the likelihood of overcoming technical problems is similarly distant from the transhumanism issue and could similarly be removed for irrelevance, but makes the desired point, and thus remains.--StN 01:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice timing on the illustration! Anyway, please have a look at my proposed change to the Playing God argument. It seemed to be too weak in its response, basically saying, "...But the transhumanists answer that they aren't really all that evil." I strengthened that (with refs) showing the argument that this tech is not just "OK" but actually good, not just permissable but desirable. This change gives the transhumanist side a stronger hearing. My links don't seem to be in the same format as the rest of the article's, though; sorry.

Actually, reading the argument again makes me think the Objections sections could be condensed and reorganized, because right now it's odd to put "tampering with nature" and "defying God's will" in the same segment while multiple Hollywood movies (Star Trek II and Gattaca) each get their own. Maybe it'd be easier to understand the objections that people have by presenting them viz: -The tech's benefits are uncertain. -The tech disrupts nature, which is dangerous. -The tech defies the will of my God, which is evil. -The tech will have harmful effects on society such as inequality, which is undesirable; -And the underlying assumption, that technologies deemed risky should be suppressed. Most of the existing content would stay under a classification system like that; it'd mostly be a matter of relabeling stuff. --Kris Schnee 20:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your suggestion. --Loremaster 21:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence from the Playing God section: Many forms of genetic alteration of humans have benign uses not fundamentally different from existing technologies. [5] This is just stated without evidence at the link and is not the opinion shared by the majority of basic research scientists and medical geneticists, though it is sometimes asserted by bioethicists. --StN 01:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What if we were to reword it, explaining the supposed logic? The argument is that a genetic change chosen for a kid is like a set of vaccinations, which also permanently alter the kid's body to increase its abilities. The disagreement seems to be over whether a genetic change is qualitatively different, and if so, whether that matters. --Kris Schnee 14:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The real crux of the matter, in my opinion, is the embryonic stage of modification in cloning and germline techniques, not the fact that genes are introduced. Few critics of human genetic engineering would draw a major distinction between vaccines and somatic gene modification. Developmental manipulation, however, using genetic (cloning, germ line modification), or even drug-based methods, changes the trajectory of the organism in unpredictable ways, and thus constitutes human experimentation, not to save or protect (as in vaccination) an existing life, but to bring about a (possibly) improved human based on the eugenic objectives of the parent/experimenter. I have read Stock, Buchanan et al., McGee, and others on this and haven't seen anything that addresses the real scientific uncertainties. But let's see what you come up with in your rewrite.--StN 15:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Transhumanism and religious aspirations

If an additional critical comment can follow the TH rebuttal above, after expansion (I don't see why not, though a case can be made for not overloading the article with criticisms), I would like to add the following:

As noted above (see Transhumanism and Spirituality), while most transhumanists self-identify as secularists, some see themselves as promulgating values of perfectionism and purification that reflect certain tendencies of Western religions, particularly post-Industrial Revolution. Indeed, some critics of Transhumanism see the ambitious goal of using science and technology to remake the human species as owing more to religious impulses than to rational motivations. (Cite Mary Midgley, "Science as Salvation" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0415107733/ref=dp_proddesc_0/002-2748799-7681621?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155, and David Noble, "Technology as Religion" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140279164/qid=1143241820/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-2748799-7681621?s=books&v=glance&n=283155 --StN 23:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The first problem is that this opens up a whole new issue. It is not about the "playing God" argument as described. Instead, it's an ad hominem attack on the credibility of transhumanists on the basis that they are driven, consciously or not, by quasi-religious aspirations (which is seen to be a bad thing). We could wheel out a whole lot of stuff from transhumanists and their sympathisers claiming that this line of criticism is total nonsense and that people lile Midgley doesn't know what they are talking about. Margaret Wertheim makes similar points at some length in her book The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace, and was savaged in a review by Damien Broderick and an extended review essay by Russell Blackford (available online) - and probably by others. Rightly or wrongly, most transhumanist sympathisers see this kind of argument as made in bad faith by people who have nothing useful to say, but are psychologically troubled by transhumanism and similar ideas ... so they try to justify their reactions by attacking the psychological motivations of their opponents. Of course, similar criticisms could then come back at at them from Midgeley, Wertheim et al. This whole argument rapidly becomes unproductive because it begins on an ad hominem basis, inviting participants to continue on that basis.

But of course, there might be some transhumanists (I expect a small minority) who actually embrace the connection with religious aspirations and don't even see it as amounting to a criticism. Broderick's The Spike discusses the issue at great length.

The connection between transhumanism and spirituality is covered in its own section, and to open up an issue like this much further, and in any proper detail, almost requires a new article.

Of course, I have no right of veto here - in the ultimate you are entitled to edit boldly. I just think it's a whole new can of worms, while at the same time being rather peripheral to the real debate (since it's all speculation about people's motivations and perceptions). Metamagician3000 00:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Metamagician. --Loremaster 00:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll withdraw the comment, though I really think you both should read Midgley's book.--StN 01:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Broderick doesn't put Mary Midgley in the category of "people [who don't] know what they are talking about." He refers to her "intelligent, deeply skeptical critique" and remarks that "her caustic reflections [on Omega Point consciousness, perhaps indirectly related to Transhumanism] quite compelling."--StN 01:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean to say that Broderick said Midgley herself doesn't know what she's talking about. But I think that's the general reaction you'd get on, say, the Extropians List. As I said, Broderick discusses the whole thing in detail (and with some sensitivity) in The Spike. I think his attack on Wertheim was quite justified, by contrast. FWIW, I normally have a lot of time for Midgeley and I do actually think that what she's talking about is a problem with some strands of transhumanism ... however, it's an ad hominem point and it's certainly not an ethical criticism ... more an attempt to discredit people (they must be wrong because you can see how they are motivated by deep, ancient yearnings, such as the yearning for immortality). The thing is, this leaves untouched the question of whether they might nonetheless be right, and I'm sure that it does not apply to all transhumanists and sympathisers with the movement, in any event, so what does it really prove even if it has an element of truth? In the absence of proof that they believe what they believe only because of some psychological attraction, the argument commits the genetic fallacy. As it happens, transhumanist sympathisers come out with all sorts of scientific and philosophical arguments; they don't, for example, rely much on mere intuitions (that could be culturally shaped or biologically evolved) as a lot of ethical and political philosophers, including Midgeley on occasion, seem to do. The transhumanist movement itself is a broad church, indeed, and an even more varied bunch of people sympathise with it in a general way, even though they are not comfortable with wearing the label, so drawing broad conclusions about their motivations doesn't take you very far.

I'm honestly not sure if I've read the particular Midgeley book you're relying on. I've read so many of her books that they're now a bit of a blur. I do think that she goes over the top, and loses rigour and perspective, when dealing with this sort of issue, but that's just me. I certainly don't want to impose my POV here, but it's good to understand each other and where we're coming from.

I also haven't read Noble's book, but I've read Wertheim's accounts of it (she relies on it heavily) and it sounds like something I'd throw against the wall if I began it. The account of the history of science that Wertheim gives is the usual Kuhnian nonsense that Kuhn himself has disowned.

The things I've read by Noble, including the book mentioned above, are much more concerned with the history of technology than the history of science. I think he's very good on his chosen subject -- not much else like it. I only know Wertheim from a few articles and don't remember having a strong opinion one way or the other. Kuhn definitely moved things ahead, despite shifting his position a lot. I prefer E.A. Burtt, but his magnum opus was last revised in 1932! http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0486425517/qid=1143255487/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0992966-6224705?s=books&v=glance&n=283155--StN 03:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I still need to read the Newman article, btw. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I printed off a copy the other day, but it looks a bit formidable and I keep busying myself at other things. Metamagician3000 02:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A possible image for the the Playing God argument: http://pewagbiotech.org/buzz/images/issue2.gif --Loremaster 02:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this really conveys the idea, and in any case it depicts a plant. I think something by the painter Alexis Rockman would work very well, e.g., http://www.akrylic.com/images/Rockman.jpg. I doubt that the copyright disclaimers used for magazine and book covers would work for this image, however. It was also used as a book cover, with the artist's name superimposed: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/1580931189/ref=dp_image_text_0/002-2748799-7681621?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books. This could be handled like the other book cover images in this article, but here the image is somewhat obscured.

I agree with your criticism of the image I proposed. However, I don't think the Rockman image conveys the omninous implication of appealing to the Playing God argument. We need something better. --Loremaster 19:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of Humanism template

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)

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)

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)

The Return of the Transtopian

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)

The article has been deleted. --Loremaster 01:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Good move. Metamagician3000 08:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Notes

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)

Cite style may help here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review?

This seems, on a cursory glance, like a rather good article. Anybody has any comments before I push it to Peer Review - a step that should always be taken before the Featured Articles Candidates step? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A good article nomination is fine. However, there is still work to be done before it can be a featured article candidate. --Loremaster 17:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel that My Work Is Done Here. :)

Unless someone else makes significant changes that I disapprove of, I can't think of anything else I could do to improve the article. I'd be happy for it to go through whatever processes people think best for it to get some wider recognition. If there are still things that Loremaster or StN or other regular contributors think need doing that's fine, of course. Metamagician3000 00:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Before it goes to PR, I'd like to offer my own comments on what should be improved. 1) 'Overview' section is usually a bad sign. Wikipedia:Lead is supposed to be an overview, therefore overview should be merged with lead and other sections. 2) There are a lot of short (2-4 lines, 1-2 sentences) paragraphs. They should be merged into fewer larger paragraphs - it looks 'better'. 3) The criticism section is quite long. I don't think it should be shortened, but I think that 'Theory and practice' (which looks like a 'main about' section) should be expanded. Perhaps 'history' should go first, than theory and currents, then critcism? PS. Inline references are extensive and impressive, but a few more wouldn't hurt (for example, currents sections has no references).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Okay, that does give me something more to think about. I reckon I'll let the article settle for a bit while the others make whatever final changes they already had in mind (StN had an idea for one more image, for example), but I'll come back to these suggestions later. [Edit: Off-hand, I do think there is something to be said for moving stuff out of "Overview" into other sections.] Regards, Metamagician3000 01:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Following Piotrus' recommendations, I made some major changes to the article. People are free to improve on what I have done. --Loremaster 20:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice, but (there is always a but...) lead can probabl be doubled or tripled in size. After all, for Wikipedia 1.0 leads are supposed to be a complete summaries. Ask yourself: if somebody just reads the lead, do they get a good summary of the ENTIRE article now?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now expanded the lead considerably. It looks to me like a reasonable summary of what follows. Comments? Metamagician3000 01:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Beyond some minor tweaking, I think it covers everything quite well. --Loremaster 20:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Much better. But :> some people are a sticker for 3 paras per lead rule - so we may want to mergr two of those together.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Loremaster 14:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Playing God Image

Image:Jp2mozzeta.jpg

Pope John Paul II condemned attempts to alter human nature.

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)

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)

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)

We should be illustrating something actually discussed in the article. That's why I suggested an image of the late Pope John Paul II. Making comparisons with the Iraq war or anything else that is thought to be analogous would be expressing a particular POV to the effect that there is some sort of comparison (it's a POV that a lot of transhumanists who oppose the war would probably find offensive, as would a lot of supporters of the war who are opposed to transhumanism). By contrast, we do actually discuss the Vatican's view, so an image of the relevant pope of the time, with a caption indicating his high-profile opposition to such ideas, is NPOV and highly salient.

That said, I'm not insistent that there be any image in this particular part of the article at all. The idea that there is a "can't get there from here" problem could doubtless be illustrated creatively, but unless there is some particular well-known publication (comparable to Brave New World in notoriety) which presses this point, I don't think it can reasonably be illustrated. The only other thing that we might all be able to accept is some kind of artistic representation of the DNA molecule or the human genome, with a caption referring to its complexity. Metamagician3000 04:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Christian transhumanists and "playing God"

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)

I like the deleted text, because we could use an explanation of how the two ideologies can be seen as consistent. I did a quick search and couldn't find a usable source, but maybe something from Christian transhumanism can be used. Also, we should look for a Mormon view! They've got some doctrines that are relevant. --Kris Schnee 13:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

GA

Great work! savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Congratulations, everyone. *Group hug.* :) Metamagician3000 04:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good job! Let's keep at this, though, and make Page One as a featured article! --Kris Schnee 13:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Aye. I think it's time for PR now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Notes and References

Can someone standardize the notes and references in the Playing God argument section? --Loremaster 20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, StN. --Loremaster 15:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Note 6 contains a dead link. The original article, which cannot have been published first on the web, should be moved to the Reference list with full information, and cited as a simple Note. In order to satisfy peer review, I propose using links in the Notes only if the item was published first on the web, or simulataneously (in full form) with the print version. Thus, for Note 25, the full journal citation should be found and placed in the References, and a link should not be used in the Notes.--StN 22:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There are still inconsistencies in the notes and references. Hughes (2002; 2003; 2005), for example, are all in the reference list, but they are the kind of non-journal internet article or talk transcript that many of the notes link to without a Reference entry (like Note 2). Either that, or everything should be moved to the References. I will be out of access for most of the next week. Can someone fix these?--StN 01:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Brave New World argument section

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)

The text reappears only when the second citation to Note 2 (ref name="Fukuyama 2004") is removed. Any attempt to restore this citation deletes the text in the published form.--StN 18:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. Not sure how. Let's hope the genetic engineers have a better handle on what they try. The stakes are a bit higher. --StN 18:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, StN. Love the sarcastic humor. ;) --Loremaster 20:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Theory and practice

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)

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)

Someone just screwed up the article by removing the Theory and Practice text and placing it elsewhere, with a gratuitous remark. Maybe someone can get that user banned. But this gives me an idea. Why not meld the Theory and Practice section with the lead to address Piotrus's criticism of its meagerness.--StN 18:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As explained in the section below, Piotrus's criticism was about the lead of the Transhumanism in fiction article. --Loremaster 04:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Th in fiction

We do have fiction works used to illustrate various points (Gattaca, etc.) - but don't you think that this theme in science fiction deserves it's own section? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No. The Transhumanism article use to have a Transhumanism in science fiction section a long time ago. However, it was expanding out of control so it was deleted and its content was moved to the Transhumanism in fiction article. The same problem occured on the Knights Templar (military order) article so a Knights Templar and popular culture article was created as a solution. --Loremaster 01:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Perhaps we should make a mention of it in the Theory and practice section. Something like:

Since the most common objections to human enhancement technologies come from science fiction, as well as positive depictions of human enhancement, set in societies filled with diversity of intelligent life, transhumanist culture critics like to explore the lessons to be derived from these cultural expressions. See Transhumanism in fiction.

What do the rest of you think? --Loremaster 01:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

How about, more simply:Science fiction has been a major source of positive depictions of technolgically enhanced human life as well as dystopian scenarios of human bioengineering gone wrong. See Transhumanism in fiction.--StN 03:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with the last version except it's not just human bioengineering that goes wrong in science fiction (think of the non-human bioengineering in Crichton's Jurassic Park, the evil supercomputer of The Terminator, or the megalomaniacal nanoswarm in Crichton's Prey). Also, the most shocking outcomes of human bioengineering are not always dystopian - often, someone simply becomes evil and powerful, with no dystopian society involved.

I'm not too keen on observations about transhumanist cultural critics, because I'm not sure there are any. :) Well ... that's slightly facetious; we could probably think of someone who could plausibly be categorised that way, but it would be a struggle. Almost anyone we thought of would be better categorised in some other way - e.g. as a writer, a philosopher, an artist, a computer scientist, or whatever. I can't think of even one significant transhumanist thinker who is best classified as a culture/cultural critic.

How about we say: Science fiction contains many positive depictions of technologically enhanced human life, but at least as frequently it has a cautionary twist. Its more pessimistic scenarios include many dystopian, or horrific, tales of human bioengineering gone wrong. See Transhumanism in fiction. Metamagician3000 07:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems fine to me. Why don't you go ahead and put it in the article.--StN 15:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that the 'Transhumanism in fiction' subarticle should be summarized in it's own section in this article. So in addition to your above para (which should also be copied to the subarticle preferably expanding its pathetic lead, the content of the subarticle should be summarized in one or more paras here. Template {{ details}} can be used to nicely link the Transhumanism in fiction article from it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've placed Metamagician's paragraph in the pathetic lead. The suggested template created an indented paragraph, so it wasn't used. A separate section in this article summarizing Transhumanism in fiction would be a good idea. Although the lead is relatively short, I think it now represents all that is warranted by the subject which, though attracting interest, is hardly as weighty as Existentialism or quantum theory. Others may disagree. The Theory and Practice section has recently been pared down by removing some long-standing bloviation. Perhaps material from that section can be transferred to the lead to bulk it up. --StN 17:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)--StN 18:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the lead to both make some minor improvements and move the Transhumanism in Fiction paragraph into its own section. Feel free to expand it a little. --Loremaster 23:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the lead to this article (not the other article with the pathetic lead <G>) is now really too detailed as a result of the latest move of some material into it. Can some be moved back out? I thought the lead was looking pretty good yesterday. Three paras is supposed to be the ideal. Metamagician3000 23:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok -- I misunderstood which article was being referred to by Piotrus. I'll work on it. --StN 00:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was reffering to the '...in fiction' article - sorry for the confusion. One more review comment: see also is long. A rule of thumb is: 1) if something is in see also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles have no see also sections.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Loremaster 05:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus -- I haven't read the three novels you added, but from what I know of them from the Wikipedia entries and elsewhere, only The Culture seems genuinely to deal with transhumanist themes as discussed in this article. Hyperion Cantos and Revelelation Space seem to be more in the classic fantasy/science fiction genre, which while often featuring quasi-human characters, does not deal explicitly with the ethical and cultural questions of human modifcation and transformation. --StN 05:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that Greg Egan is about the most philosophical of the current crop of professional sf writers, and he does deal with these issues (and not in a way that is especially partisan, though he seems pretty committed to the idea that uploading is a plausible scenario). I mentioned him and specifically Permutation City in an edit, though now I think about it Diaspora might be the clearest example. I'm happy to be fairly ruthless about what we retain in this section. There are always borderline questions about what is thematic and what is just an excuse for action, and I see no need to err on the side of being inclusive in an article like this. Still, the list of works at the moment seems generally plausible. Metamagician3000 14:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the Oryx and Crake cover is clearer and more striking, brings in a color scheme not present in other pictures in the article, and most importantly, shows a transformed body that is visible even in the thumbnail.--StN 04:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed it back. "Neuromancer" is a more iconic work.--StN 05:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Good decision. However, perhaps we should find a more clear and striking cover for Neuromancer. --Loremaster 16:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow... Love the new image. :) --Loremaster 02:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Playing God argument image

The book cover supplied by Loremaster is not bad, but I think the Biocomplexity spiral from the National Science Foundation is much better. Virtually all the criticism sections are illustrated by covers of books that have the title of the arguments. They don't illustrate the arguments and therefore don't add much. Earlier sections describing the tenets of transhumanism have illustrative pictures -- Imtech, the moon shot, digitalism. Also, the biocomplexity image was quite attractive. Can we take a poll on this? --StN 04:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Since all the other images in Criticisms section display the title of the argument in question, I've changed the image for the Playing God argument for something that follows this pattern. Also, I think the current image conveys the ominous effect intented when appealing to the Playing God argument... --Loremaster 04:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Biocomplexity spiral image is better because I think its attractiveness is actually distracting but more importantly we can't see it properly unless we enlarge it to a size that would unbalance the rest of the article. However, I've addded this image to the Biocomplexity article since it is valuable. I've also added a link to this article on the Transhumanism page within the text of the Playing God argument. --Loremaster 04:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I was happy enough with the biocomplexity spiral and the caption I gave it - it was actually me who suggested that we use an image like this if my proposed image of the late pope was unacceptable, though StN found the precise image.

I'd be more comfortable with the book cover if we made some reference to the actual book in question. Come to think of it, I'd also be happier with the Posthuman Future image if we captioned its source - was it the Chronicle of Higher Education or some journal like that? - and made reference to it (if only to say that such magazines are taking an interest in the topic, blah, blah).

Let's not get too bogged down in debates about peripheral things such as images used, as long as each image that we do actually use can be brought under "fair use", and the article doesn't go down in the Featured Article process because of copyright concerns. The important thing right now is to have a solid, stable article with no obvious weaknesses. Metamagician3000 07:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I captioned the Posthuman Human Future image as you suggested. --Loremaster 07:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Making a reference to the Dr. Robert Weise's Playing God book might actually be a better idea than we think. From Northwestern Publishing House:

Playing God explores the ethics of "perfecting" humanity through DNA, cloning, and more. Each Faith on the Edge study looks at a specific postmodern issue, examining it from a biblical perspective. New scientific theories and discoveries are not condemned or dismissed. Instead, this series explores their benefits and dangers in view of Scripture - and focuses on submitting human abilities, reason, and resources to God. Each session introduces a contemporary topic, summarizes what science has to say about it, and then provides biblical answers and guidance so that you can face the future with the wisdom and confidence that only God can provide.

This book could provide material to expand the theological objections paragraph if some feel it necessary. --Loremaster 07:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Digitalism

Can someone help expand and improve the Digitalism article due to its relation to transhumanist thought? --Loremaster 19:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to say that we also need to mention digitalism in the text of Spirituality section. --Loremaster 22:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

The mention of digitalism was re-added in a satisfying way. --Loremaster 15:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives