Talk:Transhumanism

IMPORTANT: Friendly advice for new contributors

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to the Transhumanism-related articles, categories, templates, and talk page discussions. Therefore, all content hosted in Wikipedia cannot be:

1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a transhumanist blog or visit a transhumanist forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite transhumanist views.
2. Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics, especially those that advance or hinder the goals of the transhumanist movement, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries, especially for current affairs, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikinews, however, allows commentaries on its articles.
3. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or transhumanist projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
4. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting transhumanist causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

That being said, having invested a lot of time and energy in editing the Transhumanism article, the primary contributors (User:StN, User:Metamagician3000, User:Loremaster) have been guided by one overriding principle: All claims for and against transhumanism, or otherwise, be accurate, properly attributed, and well-referenced. We don't own this article but we want it to be the best possible resource for anyone (e.g. students, journalists, cultural critics) who is interested in the subject rather than an attempt to portray transhumanism in the best or worse possible light. Despite having conflicting views, we all cooperated in an effort to make the article well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough for Featured Article status. Therefore, please take the time to discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, in order to avoid an unnecessary dispute. Thank you. --Loremaster 01:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since many people have pointed out that the Controversy section (formely known as the Criticisms section) of the Transhumanism article is long enough, I suggest that new contributors refrain from adding content to this section unless it substantively (rather than superficially) contributes to the debate. --Loremaster 17:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Message from an earlier editor

I was one of the main contributors to this article during the period when it took on its present form, underwent peer review, and was promoted to a Featured Article. The others were Metamagician3000, an avowed advocate of transhumanism who was generally sympathetic to transhumanist objectives and Loremaster, who was a bit skeptical of the philosophy and movement, though not nearly to the extent that I am. Overall, Loremaster's position could be characterized as the most "neutral" of the three. Together we arrived at a tone and coverage of topics that satisfied most critics (who also made many contributions). There continued to be a substantial group of commentators who saw the existing article as unduly promotional of transhumanist ideas, but the existence of the Controversies section served to balance these objections. I have recently started following the discussions of the article after a hiatus of more than a year. It looks to me like advocates of transhumanism are trying to refashion the article so as to reduce and undermine the criticisms and more overtly promote the movement. Loremaster's attempts to defend it as a useful and indeed respected Wikipedia article are being portrayed as tendentious. I think this is entirely unfair. There are no real transhumanism skeptics currently contributing to the article. If the contributions of earlier critics are erased by the new group of editors, a collective effort of more than a year would be degraded and the article would probably lose its FA status once general readers became aware of the changes. The upside for transhumanists would be that Web searches for the term would turn up one less balanced discussion and one more piece of hype to add to the many existing ones from the WTA. StN (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's an interesting characterisation. Metamagician3000 (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are not and never have been an avowed advocate of transhumanism? Just because you are doesn't mean that you can't be relatively objective when you edit articles related to transhumanism. Your history of contributions to the Wikipedia article on transhumanism proves it. --Loremaster (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I was reading the Controversy section of this article and noticed that the nine controversies detailed are each started with an opposition to transhumanism which is followed by a mild rebuttal. This is generally alright within the larger scope of "Controversy" since these are issues with Transhumanism. However those without excellent reading comprehension and an ability to maintain conceptual framework (which usually comes from a study of philosophy) may find that they are simply reading a list of "supposed" problems with Transhumanism with each being dealt with (and dismissed) in turn. Now there is technically nothing wrong with the article per se, but I do believe that due to the length of that section that its structure could be misleading for the average reader. (My apologies for not logging in) 70.69.191.94 (talk) 07:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

External links / See also

A comment from the Featured Article Candidate page:

There are 20 external links to organizztions not disccused in the article. I would like to see these dealt with within article or changed to See Also wikilinks to their corresponding articles. If they are not notable enough to have an article I wonder if we should be linking to them at all --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that something could be done to improve the External links section. However, according to a Wikipedia rule of thumb: 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. --Loremaster 21:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

We should follow the Wikipedia:External links guidelines. --Loremaster 20:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "See also" sections: I personally disagree with all three points listed above. Does anyone know if this is really a style guideline, or published "rule of thumb" of WP? I tried searching for "see also" on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style page and all I found was (guess what?) a "See also" section. People visiting an article are often going to be curious about what articles exist on related subjects, and aren't necessarily going to want to read the entirety of their current article looking for blue links. In short, I think this article should have a "See also" section. Comments?

KarlBunker 12:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to it. My recommendation regarding a "see also" section isn't an official Wikipedia guideline. As I said, its a rule of thumb for good articles which was recommended to us by two Wikipedia administrators. That being said, more often that not "see also" sections are used by people to put links to their pet articles which often have nothing to do with the subject of the article. --Loremaster 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not hearing any argument as to why it's a rule of thumb for good articles. I see it serving a purpose and I don't see how it does any harm. True, people might put junk in it, but in my experience that doesn't happen that much. (A "xxx in popular culture" section would be a whole 'nother story, or course.  :-)

KarlBunker 18:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"See also" are a list, lists are worse then text. Wiki is not paper, we should have room to discuss all related issues, and "See also", which rarely discuss the linked items, give little indication why they are relevant. --Loremaster 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Loremaster on this one. Metamagician3000 02:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The External links section is becoming quite long. Should we consider deleting some possibly innappropriate links according to Wikipedia:External links guidelines. Also, should we consider updating the History section by mentioning some of the para-transhumanist groups linked to in this section. --Loremaster 07:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Great article on a tricky subject

I love the way you guys organized the objections to Transhumanism. This is a very smart and balanced article. Good work. ---- CharlesGillingham 06:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Loremaster 03:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed splitting of Transhumanism #Controversy section into a new article (e.g. Controversy regarding transhumanism)

I propose that this section be split into a new article. As in my opinion, its length is out of proportion to the rest of the article. Nk.sheridan   Talk 00:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal to split the Transhumanism#Controversy section into a new article. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Comment - The early consensus regarding my proposal for splitting appears to be against. I am closing my proposal as a result of arguments made by Loremaster and StN. Expansion of other sections may be able to deal with the proportionality issue. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 00:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey - Feel free to state your position on my splitting proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia:Splitting (although this is neither a guideline nor a policy.) Thanks, Nk.sheridan   Talk 00:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Will give opportunity for both sections to be expanded without as much protest from the other side. I do agree it is odd for a controversy section to take up half of an article. Zazaban (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak Oppose. In light of below, I'm not so sure. Zazaban (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. As the archived debates of 2006 can confirm, the main contributors of the Transhumanism article decided against splitting the Transhumanism #Controversy section into a new article to avoid jeopardizing the consensus that was needed at the time to nominate Transhumanism as a featured article candidate. The main objection articulated by User:StN was that without the Controversy section the Transhumanism article could and probably would (unintentionally or intentionally) become a "puff piece" for transhumanism or, at the very least, could legitimately be interpreted as such. (This is in fact quite likely in light of the number of people who feel that the Transhumanism article currently reads like a promotion tool of the WTA...) Therefore, the solution is simple: Expand the rest of the article so that the length of the Controversy section doesn't seem out of proportion. This is a perfectly reasonable suggestion since User:Amara has complained that the rest of the article needs to be expanded regardless of the length of the Controversy section. By the way, it seems that many transhumanist readers do not realize that the Controversy section is written in such that it always give transhumanists the last word and a chance to further explain what transhumanism is and isn't. Let that sink in for a moment... ;) --Loremaster (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. As one of the three original main writers of this article, and the one most critical of Transhumanism, I fought to cover all the objections to Transhumanism in the scholarly literature. Only when the broader community was convinced that balance has been achieved did the article pass all the hurdles on the way to becoming a Featured Article, a status it was finally awarded, in the category of Philosophy. To my mind, and that of many critics, Transhumanism is not a philosophical movement, but a hodge-podge of poorly founded ideas and desires. With the Controversy section the article legitmately makes the cut as a description of an important philosophical discourse of the present period in "Western" culture. Separating off the Controversy section would seem to promote Transhumanism to a philosophical movement in its own right. If that happened I would be among the first to propose demotion of the article from FA status.StN (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Secularism

It sometimes seems that Transhumanism has strong links with militant, activist secularism, and some have even tied it to Freemasonry, although this would have to be verified and sourced, if possible. Links with the pro-euthanasia and pro-abortion movements have also appeared on the radar screen. ADM (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Militant, activist secularism? Yes. Pro-euthanasia and pro-abortion movements? Yes. Freemasonry? No. Please provide some reliable sources and we will talk about how to incorporate such content. --Loremaster (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

On the topic of militant, active secularism... A topic that I think might warrant more elaboration would be Nazi efforts during WW2. As much as I personally loath the connection, it is hard to argue against it, though I can't at the moment recall if I have seen a reputable source make a direct connection. Then again, one of my least favorite phrases in transhumanism, "ubermensch", unarguably has connections there. I'll have to see if the article has reference to the recently verified and documented cloning and "twinification" (I can honestly say that I am unaware if there is a particular term to use there) experiments (successful, scary as that kinda is) conducted by renegade Nazi scientists during and after WW2.

Activist Secularism is a topic that is already mentioned in the article, and I think that it is covered well enough considering that secularism is not a universal trait. There are enough historical instances of "secular transhumanism", or transhumanist thought/movements that simply do not have a leaning one way or another.

Freemasonry? Er... not that I'm aware of. In fact, freemasonry is a very secular movement/organization, and I'm completely unaware of any (reputable, though also no unreputable that I can think of) talk connecting the two.

Finally, while there are some loose links to euthanasia and abortion, I do not think that there is enough material of a direct connections between the two to warrant mention of it. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct. The subject is mentioned briefly in the introductory paragraph of the Theory section of the article. This following article is the source: Transhumanism: The Next Step? by Patrick Inniss --Loremaster (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Er... what does militant/activist secularism (the fight to ensure that governmental practices or institutions exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs) have to do with Nazi experiments on twins? That being said, I don't think there is a direct connection between transhumanism and Nazi human experimentation nor do I think we should elaborate on it as a topic in the article. --Loremaster (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

*chuckles* A slightly late double-take there. I would elaborate on what I was getting at, but at this point it's really moot, not to mention would probably involve a fair amount of improvisation on my own part to trying a figure it out after this long. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Fringe science and Category:Utopian movements

1. The Transhumanism article is in Category:Fringe science. Fringe science is scientific inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories, and is classified in the "fringes" of a credible mainstream academic discipline. Mainstream scientists typically regard fringe concepts as highly speculative. It is a fact that most transhumanist proposals are based on fringe science.

2. This article is also in Category:Utopian movements. James Hughes, one of the leading transhumanist advocate, wrote a column in 2003 for Betterhumans.com entitled Rediscovering Utopia: Rather than dangerous, utopianism is necessary for creating a radically more free and equal transhuman future, in which he argues that: [Critics] are right, of course. Transhumanism is, in part, a utopian movement, and there is nothing wrong and lots quite right about this. --Loremaster (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well transhumanism is neither science nor a Utopian movement. A utopian movement would be a social movement which as I understand it, transhumanism isn't. It definitely is a fringe movement/current/tendency whatever though at this time so maybe you can slap another fringe category on it. Lycurgus (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to explain to anyone that something doesn't have be a science per say to be in Category:Science or a fringe science to be in Category:Fringe science. The fact that transhumanists are known for promoting fringe scientific theories is sufficient enough for the Transhumanism article to be put in Category:Fringe science. Whether or not transhumanism is a movement or simply a subculture is open to debate. Although I tend to agree with you that it is the latter, there are simply too many reliable sources both from supporters and critics of transhumanism who have described it as a movement. --Loremaster (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's just my point, the fact is that Transhumanism does not contain any actual "theories" scientific or otherwise. The word "theory" is from a greek verb meaning "to see" so you could construct the situation so that the transhumanist "viewpoint" was a theory and this would be cogent but it would not match the actual common usage of the term as in "theory of relativity", "theory of gravitation", "theory of relativity", "model theory", etc. etc. I think that restrictive usage wrong and that in the original sense of term such a viewpoint should be considered a theory, nonetheless in the encyclopædic context, TH does not form a body of knowledge or study based on a core set of principles or axioms and so it would, I think, be more or less clearly not "fringe science" because it is not (even claiming to be) science. If in the category "fringe science" either of the nominal attributes is sufficient for inclusion, then we are of one mind that TH belongs in it. Lycurgus (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

First, I think you are overthinking this. Second, fringe science is scientific inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories, and is classified in the "fringes" of a credible mainstream academic discipline. Mainstream scientists typically regard fringe concepts as highly speculative. One example of transhumanist fringe science (which is actually mentioned in the Fringe science article's Contemporary examples section) is Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence. --Loremaster (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally, FTR, I am broadly in agreement with the TH goals/program, and for that reason in addition to what you call "overthinking" I am against the use of this pejorative category either for this article or SENS. Lycurgus (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

uh, the fact that you are admitting to a pro-transhumanist bias doesn't really help your case. Ultimately, the issue isn't whether or not it is pejorative but whether or not it is accurate. It is clear to the relatively unbiased observer that both the Transhumanism article should be in Category:Fringe science and SENS should be mentioned in the Fringe science article. Who knows? Perhaps in the near-future transhumanist concepts and proposals will be mainstream but for now they are not. We can't suppress facts simply because they make our pet cause look bad. --Loremaster (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"It is clear to the relatively unbiased observer that ..." k, you get the last word, there's nothing I need to add besides this framing. Lycurgus (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the term 'fringe science' needs to be taken a negative. All it means is that it is out of the mainstream. Plate tectonics was once fringe science. Zazaban (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Plate tectonics was a theory of geology, TH just isn't a scientific theory. Is string theory "fringe physics"? "Fringe" is a dismissive term that indicates that the thing so designated is outside the spectrum of legitimate discourse, not just not the current dominant paradigm, or very unconventional but still within acceptable discourse in whatever field. In the progression superstition/religion, junk science, fringe, unconventional theory, standard model/accepted consensus, that which is accepted as legitimate begins with unconventional. Modern science can accept very unconventional theorizing but that which it designates as fringe or junk will never be science at all. Plate tectonics was initially denied in the standard Kuhnian manner before it became the dominant model but it was never denied to be a scientific theory. But that's not the issue. TH is fringe, if you want to so designate it, it's just neither science nor a social (utopian) movement. Lycurgus (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Plate tectonics was considered fringe science before widespread acceptance. I don't really think TH as a whole is a science of any kind, but certain elements of it could fall under the label. Zazaban (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject of an article doesn't have to be a science to be put in Category:Science or Category:Fringe science. A substantive direct or indirect association with science or fringe science is sufficient. Furthermore, science is not limited to scientific theories. Science as a category encompasses concepts, ideas, hypotheses, proposals, projects, controversies, etc. Transhumanism defines itself as the scientific "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". Unfortunately, many of these technologies such as SENS, molecular manufacturing, mind uploading, Jupiter brains, or an Omega-Point supercomputer are speculative technologies that not only may never exist but that many scientists think don't even make sense. This fact cleary associates transhumanism with fringe science. As for the issue of transhumanism being a social movement, I think it is clear that the word "movement" is being used in a general way to refer to a subculture since obviously no one is disputing that transhumanism is utopian. --Loremaster (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you, you know... Zazaban (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I know. I was replying to Lycurgus. --Loremaster (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. My mistake. Your post was ambiguous, and indented from mine. No harm then. :) Zazaban (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the specific thing that TH is, I'm not sure what the right name for it is but it would be something like a futurist literary "movement", so a movement of some kind. Also part of a class of related "movements" such as 'life extension', etc., and so could be a nascient utopian social movement or a current of what will become one. No problem with the kind of movement the current lede calls it. So the edges of these objects are diffuse over time and TH could even have transited both categories for later readers of this thread. Lycurgus (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding what the catagory means. It's not like giving "Catagory:Underwear" to the article "Bloomers". It's marking an overlapping that does not necessarily imply encompassing the entirety of Transhumanism. Because many transhumanists or ideas/actions/theories/whatever-you-will fall into the catagory of "fringe science" (Which you also seem to be misunderstanding as a phrase. It does not translate to "crackpot science" in the sense used.), it gets labeled with said catagory. For instance: cryonics, a subject mentioned in this article for it's frequent links with transhumanist goals, groups and individuals is a "fringe science" in the sense that applications it is being used for in these links are unproven, untested or not wholely aknowledged as "fact" by the scientific community as a whole. While not falling into "crackpot science", instances like this involve leaps of logic, complete right-turns or logic, or hedging on future breakthroughs in things currently... er, unbroken.

I'm rambling, which isn't the best thing here, but my point is that you seem to be misunderstanding both the implications of the "Catagory" system and the definition of "Fringe Science" as being used here. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Cryonics is a perfect example of transhumanist fringe science. Thank you for reminding me. --Loremaster (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

transhumanism is not fringe science or a utopian movement

Transhumanism is an ethical movement which favors the use of technology to solve human problems and promote human progress. Some transhumanists promote fringe science (such as SENS) but the majority do not. In fact I don't even know of one transhumanist scientist with the exception of Aubrey De Grey. Calling transhumanism a fringe science is like calling white nationalism a theory of race and intelligence. Just like we don't consider Jared Taylor a psychologist and put his theories in the psuedo science category we shouldn't put this in fringe science category. YVNP (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion in the section above?

1. Just because transhumanists like to think and say that transhumanism is an "ethical movement" doesn't make it so. Most respectable observers would agree that is a technophile/technoutopian subculture struggling to become an intellectual and cultural movement.
2. Many critics (and even some supporters) of transhumanism argue that the majority of transhumanists promote or, at the very least, believe in many ideas that could be classified as fringe science. By the way, how do you know what a majority of transhumanists believe? Are you basing your statement on a scientific poll or wishful thinking?
3. You seem to be confusing fringe science and pseudoscience. The former is or can be a neutral description while the latter is inherently pejorative.

--Loremaster (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll expand on what Loremaster (someone who, for those just joining the show, is just about dead-neutral on for this topic with just enough skepticism to keep this article in check) has said correctly (as someone that both publicly identifies as as something more than a "Weekend Transhumanis" with arguably more skepticism than Loremaster).

1. This wiki is broader than just the scope of Transhumanism as just an ethical movement, because that's what the topic entails. It covers the ethical movement, individuals (both identified as Transhumanists and notable professionals who have covered it), science and social activities and just about all else. Even if this wiki was just about the ethical movement, the methods that provoke the development of these ethical debates are by and large in categories of fringe science.
2. News, science journals and independently published material all make frequent connections between Transhumanism and aspects of science that enter into "fringe science" (and a great portion of them use that exact phrase, in pro con and neutral senses), and it is for that reason and not the opinions of editors that the tag is used.
3. If you are confused on the use of Fringe Science, then I recommend that you read up on it from neutral sources. I'm quite happy to do research into fringe science, as exploration into unappreciated fields or use of knowledge in less than common applications has resulted in more than a few breakthroughs in the past. Many, many, many branches of science were previously branded as fringe science or worse in the past (most current medical practice was in the "or worse" section by far).

That should just about cover things. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. :) --Loremaster (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that transhumanist support fringe science does not make it fringe science. Raelians believe in perfect cloning but we don't put them in the fringe science category. As for transhumanism being technoutopianism I find that kind of odd. Marvin Minsky doesn't seem to be a utopian thinker. In fact many of the transhumanist thinkers have established work in their field(which is where they tend to make their ideas). If transhumanism is really seen this way where are the news sources? I haven't seen any new sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.146.182 (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly? I have to assume that you have not read the entire Wiki, let alone are familiar with the contents of the references. Many, many transhumanists are well established in mainstream fields. There are also more than a few that put deceased human beings in liquid nitrogen and the like, with the expectation that at a later date these tissues can be revivified or otherwise return the individual to some form of life. That's fringe science. Also, your comment about Minsky is an excellect example of how you are viewing this on too narrow of a scope. I don't really know how to explain things better than suggest that you fully read the article and it's references as well as the topics already discussed here on the Talk page. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No one said that transhumanism itself is a fringe science. The subject of an article doesn't need to be a science to be in Category:Science nor does it need to be a fringe science to be in Category:Fringe science. The fact that many fringe scientific ideas are associated with transhumanism is enough. As for the notion that transhumanism is not technoutopian, I'm not sure what other word best describes a movement that promotes the idea of immortality through speculative technology. As for the sources for the claim that transhumanism is technoutopian, I suggest you read James Hughes' 2003 column for Betterhumans.com entitled Rediscovering Utopia: Rather than dangerous, utopianism is necessary for creating a radically more free and equal transhuman future, in which he argues that: [Critics] are right, of course. Transhumanism is, in part, a utopian movement, and there is nothing wrong and lots quite right about this. --Loremaster (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is 189.35.195.215 (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

To YVNP: Transhumanism is not an ethical movement. Rather it is a philosophical discussion with alterations to the nature of humanity at its core. This certainly includes ethical issues but is not limited to them - I know that I am late to the discussion but had to get that out. No doubt that there are various transhumanist theories, each of which is part of the ongoing discussion. Those who affirm this or that theory will consider themselves a transhumanist in some way; as a result of this self-association, as happens elsewhere, we end up grouping together diverging views under the same heading. Since transhumanists often disagree amongst "themselves," and this is a challenge to any "transhumanist movement." Most theories are utopian themed since they all aim at improving humanity rather than simply changing it. Therefore any transhumanist movement, no matter the diversity contained therein, is innately utopian. (Again, sorry for not logging in.) 70.69.191.94 (talk) 07:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Libertarian transhumanism

Although I will continue to tweak it, I've finished the expansion of the libertarian transhumanism article. --Loremaster (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No WikiProject?

I am a bit surprised there is no Wikipedia:WikiProject Transhumanism. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You are free to start one. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur there should be one. I would make one, but I'm not sure where to begin. Hmm... Will get back to you on that :P Zazaban (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Cryonics

User:Acs1969 edited the History section of the article to add the following sentence:

“ Cryonics organizations such as the Alcor Life Extension Foundation, the American Cryonics Society, the Cryonics Institute, the Immortalist Society, and Trans Time, organized and sponsored research, advocated for and performed cryonic suspensions and published material advocating for a transhuman world view. These organizations became centers for futurists sponsoring seminars, publishing magazines, doing media PR, and providing spokespersons. ”

Can someone cite a reliable source for all of this? --Loremaster (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)