Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 8

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

Frankenstein argument

Foucault

All right, just one thing about the latest changes. I don't see how a book by Foucault published in 1988 can possibly be a response to transhumanist claims in the way that the text now claims. The text used to cite a recent work by Habermas, which makes a lot more sense in terms of the timeframe in which the debate has played out. Foucault cannot possibly have addressed this issue in the way described: transhumanism was hardly heard of in 1988. I can see how someone else who did so might have cited Foucault, but I don't believe that we can cite Foucault in this way if Foucault was not discussing transhumanism. It is original research. Hasn't Stuart Newman, George Annas, or Habermas, or someone made the point that is being made here? I'm not against critics getting the "last word" on this point in exactly this way if someone really has had the last word in the public debate so far, but saying that Foucault's general views are lying around kind of available for critics of transhumanism to draw on is not the same thing. They have either done so to date or they haven't. If they have, we need to reference where they have. A reference to Foucault, writing two decades ago does not do this. Can whoever made this change please address the problem. Metamagician3000 00:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There's now a reference to Hayles in addition to the one to Foucault. That's better. I still thimk that the reference to Foucault should go as it does not support the claim being made in the text (the claim that critics of transhumanism say certain things) unless Hayles actually cites Foucault, in which case we should say so. Metamagician3000 06:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I fixed it so that the connection between Hayles views and Foucault via "embodiment" are spelled out. I think it is important to mention Foucault and this concept, as it is implicit in a number of the critiques discussed here.--StN 15:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not a big deal, but some people may challenge it as original research unless critics of transhumanism have actually referred to Foucault. For us to say that they could have done so, or that they were implicitly relying on ideas from Foucault, is really us theorising. FWIW I think they some of them are more likely to be influenced by a similar idea in communitarian thought than by Foucault, although Hayles is probably an exception in that regard. After all, some leading critics of transhumanist proposals, such as Michael Sandell, are communitarians. Maybe you'd like to think about that at some time in the future, but let's not open up more possible revisions now. I'll let it go for now and see what happens in the FA. Metamagician3000 00:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is someone who is bringing Foucault's ideas to bear on transhumanism in a way that I believe is relevant the the article's characterization: http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/more/ben-grosscup-ethnography-of-the-transhumanist-movement/ This is obviously not a completed study, and while the writer doesn't appear to be an opponent of TH, I think he can be counted as a "critic." This turned up in a cursory web search, but it shows (along with Haynes, who refers to Foucault explicitly, and whose critique is lodged against transhumanist objectives, though she doesn't mention the movement by name in the book I referred to) that Foucault is part of the discourse on TH.--StN 00:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hughes vs Hayles?

transhumanists and non-anthropocentric personhood theorists, such as James Hughes, reply that if they are sentient, all these creations would still be unique persons deserving of respect, dignity, rights and citizenship as any other person. Furthermore, they suggest that an uplifted animal, such as a gorilla genetically enhanced to gain human-like intelligence, could become the most effective spokesperson for the animal condition and animal rights. They conclude that the coming ethical issue which must be dealt with is not the creation of monsters but what they view as the "yuck factor" and "human-racism" that would judge and treat these creations as monsters.

Some postmodernist critics, however, such as N. Katherine Hayles, drawing on concepts of "embodiment" developed by the social philosopher Michel Foucault, question the validity of treating the specific products of human biological and cultural co-evolution, such as rights and moral values, as ahistorical universals.

I don't understand why Hayles' point would be seen as an objection to Hughes' argument. Extending some rights to some nonhuman animals is such an intervention in conventional understandings of rights culture it seems more like an *implementation* of Hayles' point that rights are not ahistorical universals.

I agree with James that sentient nonhuman animals should have at least some rights extended to them now, and that modified nonhuman and human animals should have more (and never less) rights-standing in consequence of their modifications. Of course, I do not agree that this creates an *obligation* to so modify beings and worry that the additional entailments for any ethics that does discern such an obligation will be less alive to other things than rights-bearing that I think also need to be affirmed by ethics.

Also, while I certainly agree that from a pragmatic point of view a Great Ape modified to express intentions in human speech would be a powerful spokesperson for the standing of nonhuman animals in general and non-modified Great Apes in particular, I actually do not agree that this would be *proper* from my own perspective.

I think human and nonhuman animals *already* inhabit social worlds with one another and that these social relations *already* should be taken to confer moral standing as well as ethical and political responsibilities. I disapprove of the idea that only beings who can express intentions in human speech should have standing (I am not implying that I think this is James' position, I am turning my attention now to a widely-held position related to the discussion at hand), and I think a nonhuman animal modified to speak enters into new social relations with human ones rather than entering the social scene for the first time as a subject rather than an object or what have you. I think Hughes and Hayles have usefully complementary positions on these questions (and whatever my specific occasional differences with each of them, I see my own view as complementary to theirs as well). --Dale Carrico

I agree with Dale Carrico that humans and nonhuman animals (particularly domestic animals) inhabit social worlds with one another and that animals, domestic and otherwise, warrant moral standing. However, I think the "uplifted animal" (as the spokesperson for one's kind) notion, applied to nonhumans and (couched in other terms, though perhaps not by Hughes), humans, is naive and ultimately pernicious. The Hayles reference is admittedly compressed, but anything other than this shorthand, and perhaps a reference to Thomas Nagel's essay "What is it like to be a bat?", would be too much of a tangent in this article. If it is proposed to delete the embodiment paragraph I would also go for deleting the uplifted animal reference.--StN 22:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Although one (such as Carrico) can legitimately be opposed on ethical grounds to uplifting an animal for the specific purpose of making it a spokesperson for its species, I don't think the uplifted-animal-unintentionally-becoming-spokesperson notion is by itself naive or pernicious. Unuplifted great apes who been thought sign language to communicate basic thoughts, needs and desires have had a relatively profound and overwhelmingly positive impact on how humanity views this species. You may want to listen to Hughes' interview of Michele Stumpe, President of the Great Ape Project. That being said, since the uplifted animal reference is not essential to the Frankenstein (counter-)argument, I've deleted it along with embodiment paragraph. --Loremaster 00:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no particular view about this. I was happy with the old version, and I'm happy with the new version. I think the debate could rapidly become very esoteric and tangential. If at some stage we think full justice should be done to arguments about the prospect and morality of uplifting non-human animals, I guess we can find, or create, an uplifting article.
My own view - and here I part company with some of my transhumanist friends - is that uplifting animals is not only not a moral obligation but would actually be unwise. But my views are not the subject of the article. I'm just revealing a bias for what it's worth. Metamagician3000 00:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The Biological uplift article already exists. It was linked to the Transhumanism article in previous version of the Frankenstein argument. --Loremaster 00:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Origins in SF Literature

Actually, given the definitions, wouldn't transhumanism's literary origins begin with H.G. Wells' The Food of the Gods and How It Came to Earth? If not then, what about Heinlein's Beyond This Horizon or any other the books involving Lazarus Long? If that's the case, then we have a much earlier onset, predating the term, even. --Dunkelza 04:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to include something of this sort, but perhaps in the History, rather than the TH in Fiction and Arts section. The latter deals with works that were produced contemporaneously with the flourishing of TH and I think it should be kept that way. But the narrative of the History section should not depend entirely on TH sources. A more balanced treatment would note the roots of TH in the literature of technological fantasy, i.e., science fiction.--StN 05:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The thing is that transhumanism doesn't obviously have roots in science fiction. With all respect to those who say this, I think it is something that people think they know, but it has never been demonstrated in any book, or any important paper, that I'm aware of. Transhumanism may well have one point of origin in Haldane's Daedelus, as has a lot of sf published since then, but that is a common origin: A influencing both B and C, rather than B influencing C. There may also be indirect connections back to Arthur C. Clarke's early work (Clarke was one of the first people to suggest the possibility of something like mind uploading - in his 1950s novel The City and the Stars), but it is easier to trace this in later sf than in transhumanism itself. It's hard to imagine that the Wells movie Things to Come had no influence, but I've never noticed transhumanists discussing it. Some contemporary science fiction comments quite directly on transhumanist ideas, as with Ken MacLeod's work, that of David Zindell, and perhaps that of Greg Egan and Ian M. Banks. But I haven't ever seen a good argument for a direct, or even any plausible indirect, line from Wells, say, to Max More, Nick Bostrom, or any of the other major transhumanist thinkers. To do so would require a lot of original research.
My own observation is that many science fiction people are well aware of transhumanism, and often have strong views about it, one way or the other (often in opposition to it). Conversely, a lot of people with transhumanist sympathies enjoy reading some science fiction, often of the hard science fiction variety. It's probably true that a lot of extropians like Heinlein's work. Also, some people are involved in both areas (e.g. Damien Broderick and David Brin). There does seem to be a natural synergy between hard science fiction, in particular, and transhumanism, even if a lot of SF takes a cautionary approach to technology. But bear in mind, too, that sf often reacts to ideas that are already "in the air". There's a danger in getting the causation backwards. In fact, transhumanists often see science fiction as more an enemy than a friend, as something that has often presented similar ideas in an unattractive way.
If roots in science fiction had been demonstrated anywhere, or even if there was an argument to that effect from someone reputable in an acceptable primary or secondary source, we would definitely have to say so. It would be an important fact, or theory, and I for one would be happy to discuss it in the article - I have a lot of respect for thoughtful science fiction, as well as for transhumanist thinking. An analysis of how they may have influenced each other would be very worthwhile. But all this remains to be demonstrated, and it should be the subject of a paper in Science Fiction Studies or the Journal of Evolution and Technology rather than first being published here. Unfortunately, at Wikipedia, we can't publish original research, even if we have some plausible conjectures in our minds. We have to stick with reporting other people's theories and findings.
If it turns out that someone who is a reputable authority on the history of transhumanist thought has made the claim that transhumanism has roots in science fiction, we need an attribution and a reference. It's not good enough for us to see resemblances and draw conclusions. That's original research. Metamagician3000 10:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Well said. --Loremaster 12:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I am persuaded by Metamagician that in the absence of specific documentation of the SF-TH connection nothing needs to be added about this.--StN 22:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Brin wrote a great riff on the Technological Singularity in Foundation's Triumph (1999). The plot turns more on the people arguing about the Singularity than the event itself. . . which makes me think Brin wanted to coin money out of all the arguments he heard at SF conventions. Anville 17:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion

Should something of Equilibrium be included? --Brand спойт 11:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Time for FA?

Is there anything that's stopping us from going for FA? I think you guys have done a tremendous job!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Correct me if I wrong but Anville is not talking about the text we add under the images. He is refering to the Fair Use rationales in the Licensing section in the description page of the images we have chosen to add to the Transhumanism article. For example, if you go to the Image:Posthuman Future.jpg page, you will find the following box: {{Magazinecover}} As you can at see at the bottom, it requires the *uploader* (or some other editor) to add a Fair Use rationale on the image description page. --Loremaster 18:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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

A good example is the following justification for using the poster of Sunset Boulevard in its article.

Rationale for fair use of this image in the article Sunset Boulevard. No free or public domain images have been located for this film.

The poster is intended to provide an illustration for a well known and significant film, and the purpose of the poster is to suggest something of the film's style. Of the various posters available this is the most appropriate, because unlike some others it is from the period of the film's initial release, and was widely distributed to promote the film. An image on a previous edit of this article was not English language, and for an American film, English language artwork would be most appropriate.

This image is used on various websites, and has been published in several books, so use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible or visible than it already is. It does not detract from the original and is used for information purposes only.

For an article about a film, the original poster is arguably one of the most important images that could be included. Various posters and artwork have been produced over the years to publicise this film, however this is the original artwork, intended by Paramount Studios for wide distribution. As such it has historical significance to the article. It is a more appropriate choice than other images that were designed for limited releases, re-releases or for foreign markets.

I think we've done work that could help us write these things, but no one has actually written any as far as I know. I might try writing one or two, but I think the burden will mainly have to fall on people who selected the various images. If we feel that we ultimately can't justify a small number, I'm not worried. On the contrary, I've always felt we were pushing the envelope a bit with some of them, and have made noises about it occasionally.

I'm glad that the main editors seem to agree the text is finished. I'll just check what changes were made overnight, my time, but I was happy with it yesterday. Metamagician3000 23:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In light of a recent objection by a Wikipedia adminitrator on the FA page, working on the Fair Use Rationale of each image has become urgent. Since I'm currently too busy, who can work on this as soon as possible? --Loremaster 00:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

Two things strike me. First, I still think that we are going to have some difficulty coming up with a fair use justification for the cover of the book entitled Playing God - a book which we don't discuss at all. We've really just used the cover as a means to display the words "playing God" dramatically. I think we have a reasonable chance of justifying the other images, though some more than others.

Second, having not looked much at the article over the last few days, and coming back to it cold (to some extent), I'm struck by the way we have endless images that illustrate the various kinds of opposition to transhumanism, and a few images that illustrate abstract ideas artistically, but there are no images of any of the thinkers whom we discuss who have actually adocated transhumanism, or of any of their books or other works. I don't count something like the cover of Neuromancer which is by no means a book that advocates transhumanism. Could we possibly find an image of Max More, or Nick Bostrom, or Natasha Vita-More, or someone to further illustrate the history section? This absence seems very unusual in such a lengthy article on a philosophical/cultural movement. Metamagician3000 12:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I think you are confusing a fair use rationale (which is supposed to be on the image's description page) with the text we choose to include under the image when we add it to an article. Someone can correct if I am wrong but they are not and don't have to be the same thing.
2. Since both Natasha Vita-More and Max More are now distancing themselves from transhumanism, I think an image of Nick Bostrom would be most appropriate. --Loremaster 13:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you really think Natasha Vita-More and Max More are distancing themselves from Transhumanism? Their recent statement seemed to me more on the order of "Mission Accomplished." This would seem to justify using their images in the article.--StN 15:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Correction: They might not be ”distancing” themselves from transhumanism but I think they are putting the transhumanist current of extropianism to sleep. --Loremaster 19:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No opinion here about any particular image that we might use. I'd be very happy to have an image of Max More or Natasha Vita-More just because of their historical importance. (But I'd also be happy with a picture of Nick Bostrom. Or of anything or anyone that illustrates something concrete about the history of transhumanism.)

On the other point ... no, I do understand what a fair use rationale is. But it is not clear what we could say about the cover of this particular book. Take the example I used above, which includes these words: The poster is intended to provide an illustration for a well known and significant film, and the purpose of the poster is to suggest something of the film's style. Of the various posters available this is the most appropriate, because unlike some others it is from the period of the film's initial release, and was widely distributed to promote the film. It's easy enough to come up with analogous words for a movie or book that we actually discuss, but less easy to do so with a book that we don't even discuss. Metamagician3000 02:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. We'll like I said at the bottom of our previous Playing God argument image debate, perhpas we should discuss Dr. Robert Weise's Playing God book. 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 02:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to discuss this book. We discuss the genre the book is part of, and the book represents itself as an example of the genre by virtue of its name (for Eponym's sake!) I can't see any basis for the author or publisher or anyone else to object to our recommending (i.e., drawing attention to the relevance of) this book.--StN 02:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
You might be right. Let's make sure that the text of the article itself does refer to their being a genre of work which objects to "playing God" (perhaps the text does this adequately already; if not, it might just be a matter of adding a few words), and the fair use rationale can refer to the need to illustrate something of the style and tone of works in this genre. If we handle it like that, my concern may be met. Metamagician3000 02:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Whatever works. ;) --Loremaster 03:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If magazine covers come under fair use, then "Posthuman Future" is entirely appropriate here, contrary to the suggestion of User:Schaefer. The subject and author of the story is discussed in the article. I will insert a citation to it.--StN 23:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with StN. --Loremaster 02:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible images of transhumanists

Nick Bostrom: http://transhumanism.org/images/Nick%20Bostrom.jpg

Max More: http://www.kurzweilai.net/bios/images/more.jpg

Natasha Vita-More: http://www.extropy.org/images/Image11.jpg

Feel free to upload them and add them to the Transhumanism article if you feel it's necessary. --Loremaster 16:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that Max More is the most historically important and we should use the More pic, or a similar one, in the history section. That is not to say that he will ultimately be judged to be the most important thinker of these three - that remains to be seen - just that he had a vital historical role in getting the movement off the ground.
We can't upload any of these images, or any others, without trying to identify who has the rights in them, etc. If everyone is happy, I'll look around to see what I can see. Presumably More would be happy for a shot like this to be on Wikipedia - it does him no harm. Metamagician3000 11:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
On reflection I'd rather not struggle with copyright issues at the moment. I think the article can get by without this - it's just something to think about for the future. Metamagician3000 03:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Metamagician. --Loremaster 23:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, I think we should replace the Sync magazine image with a captioned picture of Nick Bostrom. It will give the article more weight. --Loremaster 22:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I think FM2030 would a much better choice than Nick Bostrom, who according to the article represents just one strain of transhumanism, and was not a founder of the movement. There is a black-and-white image that appears on many websites and newspaper articles without attribution (e.g., here: http://www.transhuman.org/fm-2030story.htm). I think this can be safely used, but I am not certain about this.--StN 22:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree but I would not be opposed to your suggestion. --Loremaster 22:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't come up with a justification for using the FM2030 image in the absence of copyright information. I don't think we should use a portrait of anyone else, but just leave the history section unillustrated. We do need fair use justifications for "Posthuman Future" and "Holy Tech", however.--StN 23:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
These have now been provided.--StN 00:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I can have a colleague email Nick Bostrom to ask him whether or not he would authorize Wikipedia to use his image for both the articles on him and Transhumanism. --Loremaster 02:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I still think having as the single portrait in the History section of the article someone who represents just one tendency within transhumanism, and was too young to have been present at the movement's inception, is misleading. The demise of Extropianism is not relevant to such a choice -- this section describes the movement's history. I would even say that J.B.S. Haldane would be more appropriate. There is a picture of him on the website of the Royal Society, but the link describing the copyright of that image is dead.--StN 02:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the fact that Nick Bostrom is 1) one of the few analytical philosophers in the transhumanist movement; 2) the leading transhumanist philosopher; and 3) the founder and president of the only major transhumanist organization, makes him notable enough to have his picture in an article on transhumanism. On the other hand, although Haldane's work might have been a precursor to transhumanist thought, he is not a transhumanist and, if were alive today, may or may not reject any association with the transhumanist movement. --Loremaster 02:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I would be happier using Nick Bostrom's picture in the Theory and Practice section than the History section, partly because of his youth, but also because he is a major source for the History -- this would look strange. There is no reason there can't be two pictures in the T&P section. However, if others think my objection to his picture in the History section are not persuasive, I think it should be placed in the second half of that section rather than the earlier portion.--StN 02:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You've convinced me. Let's completely forget to include a picture of Bostrom but let's find a way to get a picture of FM2030 in the History section. --Loremaster 03:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that we have a featured article it should be easier to obtain a picture of FM2030 for the History section. James Hughes has produced a film on him and should have access to stills or screenshots for which approval for public domain use could be solicited from the copyright owners, whom Hughes is undoubtedly in contact with. If anyone knows Hughes, or knows someone who knows him, I suggest writing to him. The fourth picture down in the right-hand column of this page, for example, http://www.fm2030.com/photos/late.cfm, would be highly suitable.--StN 19:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Historical Revisionism?

Anonymous User:86.133.14.127 is radically editing the History section without discussing it here first. I will revert the Transhumanism article to a previous version until he explains himself. --Loremaster 23:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I support Loremaster's removal of the politically tendentious material recently added to the History section.--StN 02:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And further supported by little moi. The last edits by the anonymous user went beyond understandable newbie behaviour into something more akin to vandalism. We should ask uninvolved admins to have a look if it continues, and some of them are inclined to strong action when needed. Metamagician3000 03:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I've had to revert the article again. It is reasonable to assume that libertarian transhumanist Simon Young, author of Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto, and virulent critic of James Hughes and the WTA, is User:86.133.14.127. --Loremaster 21:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The latest stuff doesn't seem to contain any vandalism (though I haven't checked every layer of editing). That's obviously an improvement. If this user would not try to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, he or she might well have something valuable to contribute. A large block of the history section devoted to a very recent event with as yet unknown consequences is wildly disproportionate. Furthermore, any claims about what Simon Young has announced should be properly referenced. If the new editor simply put in a sentence that stated that Young has announced the formation of a new organisation of libertarian transhumanists to fill the perceived gap left by the Extropy Institute - and was diligent about including a proper note and a new reference to maintain the high standard of the article - then I'd obviously have no objection. If he or she does not know how to use our referencing system, then s/he can put the URL here (if it's something on line) and I will do it - or I'm sure Loremaster or StN will do it if I'm not around.
I imagine that everyone else who has worked hard on the article joins me in welcoming new facts if they are relevant, kept in proper proportion, and presented in the correct way.
I hope that our insistence on proper standards in attributing, sourcing and referencing is not what people in this group are referring to in the on-line censorship claim that keeps getting mentioned. Metamagician3000 23:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
There must be evidence that the "World Transhumanist Society" (which does not have a website and is not registered as a NPO) is not an organization whose only member is Simon Young otherwise it is not notable. Futhermore, a Wikipedia article should not be used to promote the existence of an organization in order to recruit potential members, which is clearly the intent behind the mention of this "organization" in the Transhumanism article. As for the on-line censorship claim, I think it does refer to our insistence on proper standards. --Loremaster 01:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, I fear that your last sentence is correct, which would show that whoever is making the allegation simply doesn't understand, or does not want to understand, how Wikipedia works. You're probably right about the rest, too, but I remain open to a clear factual, properly attributed, well-referenced sentence if Simon Young has actually said or done something that already has a high profile (as opposed to Wikipedia being exploited to try to give it a profile) and that can be verified. Judging by what has happened so far the anonymous contributor may simply not be in a position to meet that standard, which is his or her problem, I'm afraid - not ours. Metamagician3000 03:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:86.133.14.127 is still trying to add his virulently POV content without significant changes despite the message I left him on his talk page and the invitation to explain himself in this section so I've therefore reverted the article to an older version. --Loremaster 15:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
User:86.133.14.127 who has actually identified himself As Simon Young and provided his email(!) is now engaging in clear acts of vandalism at the worst possible time. I am therefore requesting a page protection. --Loremaster 01:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Transhumanism

Transhumanism is now a featured article candidate. Please voice your support or objection.

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

Religious Humanism

I would like to add a "see also" to Religious Transhumanism. --David Wallace Croft 2006-05-13

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

Nick Bostrom

I don't think the article at this stage needs to showcase or defend Nick Bostrom more than it has. I'm not averse to having a picture of him, but noting that he has dissociated himself from the concept of the Übermensch (as Metamagician has done) is going too far, in my opinion. We have cited several of his articles and he comes through in the text as a democrat. As far as I can tell, Prof. Bostrom is just in his early 30s; this is an article about a 40 year old social movement that has many strains. There is a separate Wikipedia article where Nick Bostrom's specific contributions are described. Incidentally, my original caption for the Nietzsche picture simply referred to to self-overcoming as a theme that has reappeared for good and ill over the past century. I think it is accurate to say that transhumanism involves self-overcoming. That doesn't mean that transhumanists in general, or Nick Bostrom in particular, advocate the Übermensch concept, which wasn't even mentioned in the Nietzsche caption.--StN 03:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

StN, I know your intentions are good, but you shouldn't revert/cut out properly referenced material. The Ubermensch section now puts a new emphasis on Nietzsche, which made it legitimate for me to include a properly referenced sentence indicating that Bostrom has made remarks about the difference between transhumanism and Nietzsche's concepts. If that sentence is removed, then the whole section will need to be changed as it leaves the parallel between transhumanism and Nietzsche unanswered. The alternative is to delete the reference to the Ubermensch concept, delete the pic of Nietzsche, etc. The clear reason for the Nietzsche pic is the reference to the Ubermensch concept in the heading and the text. Without that mention, the pic has no basis to be there. I'd be happy to settle this by changing the heading to something more accurate - most of the section is actually not about the Ubermensch concept, but the heading and pic give a quite different impression - deletion of the throwaway reference to the Ubermensch concept in the text (which seems to have no real basis), and deletion of the misleading Nietzsche pic. We don't actually need so much illustration as the article has - it should not be driving content.
Meanwhile, while you digest this, I'm going to revert back, because I think my edit was legitimate and necessitated by the recent bunch of edits that have changed the emphasis of the section. Btw, I don't understand the reasoning behind your remark when you made the change that most thinkers would disavow Nietzsche's ideas. Why is that a reason to cut out a statement that a leading transhumanist thinker has distinguished between Nietzsche's views and transhumanism? If most thinkers would disavow Nietzsche on this point, it is all the more reason to point out that transhumanism is not necessarily some sort of exception. Metamagician3000 03:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Metamagician. --Loremaster 03:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that the section name had been changed from "Eugenics wars" to "Ubermensch". In this case I see why you would want to defend transhumanists from this association. It changes the whole tone of the section. But the text mainly concerns eugenics and the original title was better. It is well-motivated and referenced to point out the connection of TH with eugenics, and the text as it stands makes a defence against this. Making it seem as if the section is about the straw-man connection to Ubermenschism by changing the title dilutes the eugenics issue. Defenders of Nietzsche dissociate him from Nazi ideas, and this is probably legitimate. My introduction of his picture and the original caption highlighted the affinity of his ideas with several 20th-21st century tendencies. But Nietzsche does not equal Nazi, and individual transhumanists don't need to be protected from association with the controversial but TH-like ideas of the former. I propose restoring the original title of "Eugenics wars" and perhaps taking the "even Ubermensch" phrase out, but leaving Nietzsche and my original caption in. In that case there would be no reason to specifically defend Nick Bostrom.--StN 04:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Reading it again I see that "even Ubermensch" needs to be retained, since it is a potential consequence of TH ideas taken to the extreme. However I still think the wording can be reformulated without defending Nick Bostrom by name. My point about mainstream thinkers was that even if someone actually held Ubermensch ideas they would take pains to dissociate themeselves from the word and from the Nazis. I'm not saying this is what Bostrom is doing, but pointing out his disavowal like Metamagician did seems to be protesting too much.--StN 04:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the previous title Eugenics Wars, removed the mention of Ubermensch, and removed the Bostrom counter-argument. I suggest we replace Nietzsche's image with that of Herbert Spencer. --Loremaster 04:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I think Herbert Spencer would work, but in this case I think we can put back "even Ubermensch" without fear of over-emphasizing it.--StN 04:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. --Loremaster 04:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Metamagician--I hope you are satisfied with this solution. Sorry for cutting before presenting my rationale.--StN 05:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

To Recap

1. Make sure all images have Fair Use Rationales using Wikipedia guidelines.

2. Had a captioned image of FM2030 to the History section.

3. Expand the Gattaca argument section using the content of the Gattaca's article criticism section.

Once this is done, the article will be perfect. --Loremaster 04:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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


New image for the History section

Now that we have a featured article it should be easier to obtain a picture of FM2030 for the History section. James Hughes has produced a film on him and should have access to stills or screenshots for which approval for public domain use could be solicited from the copyright owners, whom Hughes is undoubtedly in contact with. If anyone knows Hughes, or knows someone who knows him, I suggest writing to him. The fourth picture down in the right-hand column of this page, for example, http://www.fm2030.com/photos/late.cfm, would be highly suitable.--StN 19:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the picture. I will contact my colleague who knows Hughes. --Loremaster 00:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
My colleague forwarded me James Hughes's reply in which he says, The images and that website are owned by FM2030's widow Flora Schnall, and we have permission to use them. --Loremaster 15:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll insert the picture, then, with a brief identification. Please expand the caption as you feel appropriate.--StN 15:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. --Loremaster 15:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It's up. I changed 'FM-2030' to 'FM2030' throughout, to conform with Flora Schnall's website. He must have stopped using his middle initial at some point.--StN 15:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh I didn't realize this so I reverted your changes. You can change it back if you want. By the way, I added this picture to the FM-2030 article. --Loremaster 15:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Playing God argument section

I removed the following text from the article until a source is cited:

Religious transhumanists generally subscribe to the doctrine of co-creating with God, which they believe provides them with a warrant to participate in the reconstruction of human biology.

Even the page which it is internally linked to is dubious. --Loremaster 04:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's back, in a different form, with references.--StN 05:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Good. --Loremaster 13:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Designer babies

Looking over the "Eugenics Wars" section it struck me that internally linking the term "healthy, happy, and multiply talented child" to designer babies, a speculative and controversial prospect, is highly non-NPOV. I rewrote the relevant sentence to reflect a balanced view of this transhumanist goal.--StN 04:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think deleting any mention of "designer babies" from that section would be best. Perhaps including one in the Playing God argument would be more appropriate. --Loremaster 14:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Status

Transhumanism now appears to be a featured article (though I don't see a star on the front page). Congratulations all around!--StN 18:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks in large part to you and Metamagician. ;) --Loremaster 00:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Ronline just added the featured article bronze star tag to the article. :) --Loremaster 03:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Congrats everyone. *POPS CHAMPAGNE CORK* I've been caught up in some other things the last couple of days, including a content dispute with another article, and hadn't until now seen the outcome of my little whine about the Ubermensch/Nietzsche thing. Apologies to StN if I was a bit grumpy the other day. What you guys have actually done with this section is terrific. I feel proud of this article not just because it is good but because as a group of people with varied viewpoints we've been able to negotiate our way to this outcome - it's a great example of Wikipedia actually working. Metamagician3000 13:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Transhumanism will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2006. --Loremaster 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Order of Criticisms

It seems to me that a more logical order for the Ethical Criticisms would be the following: Playing God, Enough, Terminator, Gattaca, Brave New World, Frankenstein, Eugenics Wars. There's no perfect logic, but this seems to me to move along an axis from the practical/philosophical to political/futuristic-dystopian. The current order is Playing God, Terminator, Brave New World, Enough, Gattaca, Frankenstein, Eugenics Wars, which doesn't have any logic that I can see. I won't make any changes until I at least hear back from Loremaster and Metamagician.--StN 20:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the lack of a logic to the order of criticisms has always bothered me but I haven't sat down long enough to think of the best one so I'm open to suggestions. --Loremaster 00:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried it anyway, but slightly differently from above, to conserve the McKibben link between Enough and Gattaca. It seems ok, but please see if there is a better choice.--StN 20:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Is it bias?

I read the article as a layman and was impressed with the content, grammar and encyclopaedic nature of the article. However, having read the article I felt an overwhelming feeling that Transhumanism suffered from mass criticism and they were very few supporting arguments in comparison to the number of critical arguments. Is this just a reflection of the feeling towards Transhumanism or is it weighted more towards criticism than it should be? Grahams Child 15th May 2006

I think the article is an accurate reflection of the general feeling towards both transhumanism and emerging technologies. Personally, I think transhumanism can only grow stronger by understanding this criticism and responding to it. That being said, although I don't share this sentiment, I am happy to hear from someone who perceives an anti-transhumanist bias in this article rather than the opposite. --Loremaster 14:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, I think the counter-arguments in both the Enough and Frankenstein sections are not robust enough compared to counter-arguments in other sections. For example, much of the Frankenstein argument is based on the naturalistic fallacy and the same kind of hysteria that led people to oppose in vitro fertilisation claiming that IVF children would lack souls, be seen as objects by their parents or treated as freaks by other children and the rest of society. 30 years later, we realize that this was all non-sense. The same goes for clones which are simply delayed twins. Metamagician, can you work on this? --Loremaster 15:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I certainly don't think there is a pro-tranhumanist bias in the current version of the article, even if there was in some earlier versions. I think that giving every possible argument against transhumanism makes it very difficult to avoid the implication that transhumanism has a lot of problems - because it is difficult to find verifiable responses to every single argument, even if we can see what transhumanists should say (putting that would be original research). Metamagician3000 07:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't be so sure "[t]he same goes for clones". Biologically they are not "simply delayed twins". This view can only be sustained by adopting a view that genomic DNA is the sole determinant of an organism's developmental properties. Many studies show clones to be biologically different, at the gene-expression level, from normally developed organisms. Furthermore, if you are at all a materialist (which in this case is not equivalent to "genetic determinist"), you would have to concede that making material changes beyond a certain point will change the nature of the organism. You may still have a "person", but it won't necessarily be a human person.--StN 15:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I actually agree. I wanted to delete the "simply delayed twins" comments but chose to let it go. However, my overall argument still stands. Once people get over the hysteria, clones will be treated like everyone else. --Loremaster 16:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Unless, perhaps, their brains are wired differently and they don't want to be treated like everybody else, or they behave so unusually that no one likes them.--StN 16:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Houellebecq-esque scenarios... --Loremaster 16:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think Illegal Beings: Human Clones and the Law by Santa Clara law professor Kerry Lynn Macintosh might be a good source. There is an interview of her in the Changesufer Radio archive. --Loremaster 15:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Are we all going to head over to Human cloning and work it up to FA status? ;) Metamagician3000 13:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am too busy with other Wikipedia articles and many offline projects to concentrate on working yet another Wikipedia article to FA status. For now, I am more interested on your thoughts about the current debate about improving the Frakenstein counter-argument. --Loremaster 14:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I find the argument itself a bit odd. It seems to scramble together a set of claims about "dehumanization" and so on, and perfectly sensible claims about the adverse utilitarian consequences of creating beings who may, in practice, be excluded from society. That's not to say I can necessarily improve on the section. Metamagician3000 07:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not troubled by the set of claims about dehumanization. What I am questioning is whether or not claims about the adverse utilitarian consequences of creating beings who maybe socially excluded are as sensible as they seem in light of the in vitro fertilization example. Leon Kass (and possibly Jeremy Rifkin if I recall correctly) uses almost the same arguments he used against IVF (which he opposed) that he is now using against cloning and reprogenetics. In others words, I think the Frankenstein argument itself is fine but that the counter-argument doesn't point out the alarmism involved in this argument. --Loremaster 14:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact that recent objections to germline modification, cloning and chimeras have been made by some of the same people who objected to in vitro fertilization early on does not invalidate the present arguments or show the earlier ones to have been alarmist. Unlike in vitro fertilization, which uses the standard ingredients (egg and sperm) to produce an embryo, the newer technologies are really capable of producing something different from human, though it can be argued how many altered genes or altered patterns of gene expression it would actually take to cross the line. The earlier arguments against in vitro fertilization dealt with a major change in the social organization of reproduction that has enabled the newer prospects. The people who found it problematic then were, in my opinion, not so much alarmist as prescient. In a documentary film shown on U.S. television last night, "Frozen Angels": www.pbs.org/independentlens/frozenangels/, Gregory Stock was shown playing with his pedigree dog and stating, with bemused disdain, that many of the same people who object to creating genetically engineered babies can be found at dog shows admiring all of the beautiful qualities of the numerous breeds on display. How hypocritical of them, he seemed to be implying--StN 18:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting my point. Regardless of the alleged radical changes that new reprogenetics may produce (which ironically might be nothing more then hype that both transhumanists and anti-transhumanists are buying into), the same invalid arguments used against in vitro fertilization are now being used against cloning ("They won't have souls!", "Their parents will see them as objects!", "The rest of society will treat them as freaks!", etc). I don't buy it. As for the major change in social organization of reproduction, people who supported in vitro fertilization were equally aware of this possibility and welcomed it in the same way some feminists see the prospect of artificial wombs as potential means of female emancipation. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you or I think. There are many academics who have cogent rebuttals to the bioconservative stance of the Frankenstein argument whicht you obviously share. They should be heard otherwise Graham Childs' questioning of whether or not this article might be biased may have some truth to it. Let's all be open-minded rather than set in our views. --Loremaster 19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I understood your point. I wasn't saying that there should not be an expanded discussion of the Frankenstein argument, I was just making the counterpoint that the transformations possible with the new technologies are more profound than with in vitro fertilization. I don't think the demonstrated possiblity of interspecific mammalian chimeras, for example, is "hype". Mainstream physicians and scientists always deny wanting to do this with humans, but it is certainly on some transhumanist agendas (though probably not that of the WTA). I also think that neither Kass nor Rifkin, the two critics of in vitro you mentioned, said "They won't have souls." Please correct me if I am wrong about this. I do think that these two may have said "Their parents will see them as objects." The television program I mentioned, which showed interviews with sperm and egg bankers concerning what parents were asking for and paying premiums for, and which had the Gregory Stock "dog show" interview, gives some credence to this. People are definitely using language that is new and which seems to me consumer product-oriented. I was not proposing that the Wikipedia article portray this as negative, but wanted to indicate that calling such concerns "alarmist," just because society has accomodated in vitro children, is not really an argument for dismissing the escalating possibilities. I'm aware of the feminist arguments in favor of some reproductive technologies but can also refer you to feminist arguments against (perfect) babies at any cost and the health hazards of repetitive ovarian stimulation.--StN 21:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Relevant to the "chimera" issue, but probably tangential to everything else, is "Grandma Manimal" by Carl Zimmer. I found this via PZ Myers at Pharyngula, who a while ago wrote an interesting essay on the Technological Singularity. Anville 21:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
This is an interesting essay, Anville. Thanks for pointing it out. But despite Zimmer's mild caveats, he *is* conflating hybrids with chimeras, pre-speciation events with post-speciation events, and "is" (early in the history of hominid evolution) with "ought" (now). It seems to me that some (perhaps not Carl Zimmer or the other main contributors to this article) who compare concern with breaching human-animal species barriers with racism or sexism would not necessarily grant animal and composite human-animal "persons" the right to vote, and not be bought, sold or eaten.--StN 22:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
StN, you are entitled to your opinion. Since a Wikipedia talk page mainly exits to discuss changes to a Wikipedia article, I won't had more to this debate. Those interested should focus on finding sources for arguments to slightly expand the counter-arguments of the Enough and Frankenstein sections. We also need to cite a source for Bailey's counter-argument in the Enough section, which I am surprised we've never done. --Loremaster 03:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the article is biased. I think that although certain sections seem in favor of one side, other sections seem in favor of the other side. Although I do think that there are more arguments agaisn't trasnhumanism than for it in the article, I don't think it's much of a problem. That said, being a strong trasnhumanist myself, it is my opinion that the arguments agaist it are silly in nature. Although one can see the logic in them, the ethics behind them I think are incorrect. If someone asked you if you wanted to die or have your life artificicaly enhanced so you could live longer, of course you would not want to die. Saying that if you lived to long life would be meaningless is silly. When someone lives a longer life, they have more explirence, knolwgae, wisdom, and skill to draw from in their later years, making thier life extension even more meaningful than their previous life. It is my opinion that anyone who doesn't support transhumanism is in support of short life, suffering, and primitive technology. If we all work toghther to evlove into something more, everyone could live enternal porperous lives in a utopia. Tobyk777 05:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Toby, you can cite a source to support your opinion? --Loremaster 14:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Tobyk777, it seems to me that the goals you favor are those of conventional medicine, which few critics of transhumanism would oppose. It's when radical experimental methods like germline genetic engineering to achieve biological changes are proposed that many informed people part ways with TH. High-tech conventional medicine can increase the number of people who live to 115, and alleviate the effects of aging, but it would likely take knocking out or inserting genes into early-stage embryos to get people to live to 300. This is not the same scientific program. As far as McKibben's "meaning of life" arguments are concerned, many of them are unexceptionable, even, probably, for transhumanists. The steroid-consuming baseball player Barry Bonds will soon surpass Babe Ruth's home run record. Who would claim the two records have the same meaning?--StN 15:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Your mention of baseball reminded me of Stephen Jay Gould's book Full House, in which he asks the classic question, "Where are the .400 hitters?" and answers using statistics. Gould's argument (I am probably oversimplifying here because I don't have the book at hand) is that there is an intrinsic limit to how well human athletes can perform. Human muscle and tendon can only move so fast and with so much force, meaning that there is a "wall" on the right-hand side of the performance graph. Sports medicine and rigorous training can move individuals closer to this wall, shifting the mean and the mode toward the upper physical limit. All along, a few individuals could push themselves to the max and stand near the right-hand wall, but now, the "average" players are now performing closer to the best possible. Consequently, overall improvement makes far fewer individuals stand out than did during the "Good Old Days". Systemic improvement combined with a hard upper limit means that nobody is distinguished enough to be called a .400 hitter!
The argument is summarized here.
It seems to me that "conventional medicine" is all about moving the overall population up to whatever right-hand walls exist, while to be a transhumanist, you need to work on pushing the wall itself. Just a thought, and one I haven't seen expressed in this particular way (but I certainly haven't read everything I should have). Anville 19:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this is exactly right. McKibben's "Enough" is a good source for this argument.--StN 21:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
You said that transhumanism is about going above and beyond. that's what I believe. Germline GE, stem cell reaserch, nano-tech; I think we should do all of it, and I think it should the primary goal of society to make all forms of technology as good as they can. If conventional medicne can make someone luve to 115, great. If technology inspired by trasnhumanism can make someone live to 300 that's even better. To use your example, I think the records will hold the same value. The best record that modern biotech can set should be the record. If someone comes up with a way for someone to hit a baseball into space that should be the record. The reasons records change is because of progress in human develpment. This article I wrote here on WP, which is now a good article, is about a fictional machine from the TV show Stargate SG-1. I think that this machine is the ultamte piece of technology, and that humanity's goal should be to have the ablilites. that this machine gives. The plhiosophy behind the machine is precisely my philospohy; and that's why I have spent so long prefecting the article. The article can be found Here. Tobyk777 00:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Anville was putting an argument for anything, so much as making an interesting observation, but s/he can correct me if I'm wrong. :D Metamagician3000 09:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You're basically right. If anything, I am "arguing" that we have yet another author whose writings are relevant to thinking about H+. A quick Google check indicates that H+ people mention Gould in connection with punctuated equilibrium, but I haven't yet found this particular observation being put forth. (James Gleick connected the "where-are-the-.400-hitters" question with the "where are all the Mozarts who should be alive today?" question. Given all the uncertainties and vagaries with defining Mozart-ness, this can only be a metaphor, but I think it's an illuminating one.) Just a little more Original Research which might become something useful on a future day. Anville 17:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)