From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

About See also sections[edit]

According to a Wikipedia administrator: 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. "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 06:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


What kind of prosthetic modifications are referred to here? It seems prosthetic modifications are not anticipated at the same level that genetic and cognitive modifications are. --Nectarflowed (talk) 09:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. The original version of the article is the most wide-spread and accepted definition of 'techno-progressivism'.
2. The word 'economic' is not necessary so it has been edited out.
3. By 'prosthetic', one is refering to cyberware, which are often discussed by some techno-progressives.
Loremaster 16:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The mention of prospethic modifications has been replaced with the mention of morphological freedom. --Loremaster 11:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


I removed the content that was possibly a copyvio from this article The Trouble with "Transhumanism. I think the new text is in the same spirit of the replaced text, but avoids duplication of material that is probably more appropriately located at transhumanism.--Nectarflowed (talk) 23:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I recommend that the text revert once again to the earlier form. I strongly disagree that the new text is in "the same spirit" as the one it replaces. The revised version takes potshots at socialism, Marxism, and the Green Party, none of which occur in the original, and none of which seem particularly relevant to the discussion at hand. It is easy to imagine technoprogressive positions that wouldn't distinguish themselves from Marxism or conventional Green attitudes in the least. Certainly some technoprogressives would distance themselves from these versions of left technophilia but not all of them would. Why bring the topic up at all? Also, the phrasing that "technological development" has done more than "any other human invention" seems clumsy and confusing -- technological development is not an "invention" but subsumes practices of invention more generally. The original version emphasizes the support of genetic, prosthetic, and cognitive modification with the qualification of stakeholder accountability because this distinguishes it very directly from "bioconservatism" to which it is related as a contrast in the article itself. As for copyright violation, the formulation here appears in many places online by the author of the article in question and others as well, including places with a Creative Commons license explicitly welcoming use by others. It makes sense to come up with an alternate formulation just because that is always clarifying when people are talking about abstract notions like this, but I do not agree that the proposed revision is clarifying at all, and I do not agree that copyright considerations compel the replacement in any case.
I've been informed that the author of the The Trouble With Transhumanism column has no problem with Wikipedia using his formulation of technoprogressivism for this article. He can be contacted at Loremaster 14:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hi Loremaster. "Prosthetic" modification has a specialist usage in transhumanism that will be unfamiliar to the majority of uninitiated readers and anyone with a dictionary at hand, though etymologically this usage makes sense. Many articles explain terms that are being used in a specialized way. Can you demonstrate the advantages to the term "prosthetic" over "cyber ware" or "cyber modifications?"--Nectarflowed (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Conceded. Loremaster 15:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the term "cybernetic" is much less familiar, much more specialized, and rather more restrictive than "prosthetic" as a word to describe human modification practices, so I don't understand how concerns about specialization and unfamiliarity would prompt this replacement. It seems to me that part of the value of calling attention to the technoprogressive advocacy of "prosthetic" modification is that it is legible to wider audiences: Clothing, prosthetic limbs, eyeglasses, contact lenses, pacemakers, pharmaceutical/contraceptive patches and devices, scientific instruments, all are very familiar and deeply meaningful prosthetic practices of human modification. They are so familiar in fact that they tend to be considered "natural" rather than "technological" at this point. This says valuable things about prosthetic modification that technoprogressive technocriticism will want to attend to carefully. Anyway, calling attention to cybernetic modification in particular seems to me to foreground just one particular kind of prosthetic modification among others for no good reason (except possibly that this mode has been especially conspicuous in certain works of science fiction -- Cyberpunks in the 80s, Vinge, Egan in the 90s -- beloved by many who seem to be drawn into discussions of these topics). I would also add that technoprogressivism is a sensibility, a broad orientation, an open-ended constellation of political and cultural campaigns concerned with technological development and democratization and social justice issues. It isn't a movement, identity, or philosophy of life. While some transhumanist-identified people properly describe their viewpoints and goals as technoprogressive, it would be mistaken to identify these two trends or assume that technoprogressive criticism, politics, campaigns, attitudes have any necessary connection to whatever it is that particular people mean by terms like "transhumanism," "posthumanism," "cyborg," etc. Dale Carrico
After doing more research into neuroprosthetics, I agree that prosthetic is the preferred term here, but I do think it requires an explanatory note, as popular usage and some dictionaries tend to define it solely as bodily replacement. Still, are there any prosthetic modifications that are widely anticipated besides for neuroprosthetics?
Regarding your description of the definition of technoprogressivism, it seems it may at heart be an ethical viewpoint, that, in the long run, technological progress results in the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.
I'm not sure what your precise meaning is when you say "political and cultural campaigns," as enthusiasm for technological progress doesn't necessarily seem to be on the cultural radar compared to issues like traditional values and sometimes-widespread apprehensiveness toward future technology. Are you referring to campaigns such as SpaceShipOne and California's stem cell institute? (Nice to see you, Dale) --Nectarflowed T 28 June 2005 09:43 (UTC)
First of all, I think it is crucial for technoprogressive advocates to resist the bioconservative impulse to *naturalize* technologies that they have grown accustomed to while fanning fears of emerging technologies. Advocates for anticipated prosthetic modification practices should be able to use analogies with customary prostheses like eyeglasses and clothes and pacemakers in making cases for progressive future technological practices. It seems to me that any number of anticipated medical interventions are more prosthetic than genetic -- for example respirocytes. I agree with your view that technoprogressivism is an ethically inflected perspective, but I think it is still compatible with more than just the dictum that one should struggle to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, or any of a number of comparable moral axioms. More generally, I think technoprogressivism is little more than an insistence that "progress" must always have both a scientific/instrumental dimension but also a political/moral one. That means, for a technoprogressive, technological progress without progress toward a just distribution of the costs, risks, and benefits of technological development should *not* be regarded as "progress" in the first place -- and, in the same way, for technoprogressives progress toward greater democracy, greater fairness, less violence, a wider rights culture are all inadequate to confront the inescapable technoconstituted quandaries of contemporary life without progress in science and technology as well to support and implement these values. Finally, I can only speak for myself, but I am not a technophile or uncritical enthusiast about technology. I am an enthusiast about and champion of *some* emerging and anticipated technologies. My perspective is techno*centric* -- but uncritical technophobia and uncritical technophilia are both attitudes realistic technoprogressives can no longer afford to indulge in. There are countless campaigns afoot for specific technoprogressive developments -- some sustainable energy projects, some biomedical research, some gengineered foodstuffs, some space exploration, some decentralizing media tools -- that mobilize widespread support and are even publicly subsidized -- but the broad brushes of technophilia/technophobia nudge us into overgeneralizations about attitudes toward technological developments, and make it difficult to focus on exactly what is happening where among whom. (it's Dale, again -- hi back atcha)
The mention of prospethic or cybernetic modifications has been replaced with the mention of morphological freedom. --Loremaster 11:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


This page is about progressive and optimistic attitudes about technology. There's obvious relevance to an actually notable science writer using a nearly identical term. In fact, techno-optimism has nearly 10 times the amount of unique google hits as "techno progressivism" (the initial google result doesn't exclude identical hits).--Nectar 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is about politically progressive (not simply optimistic nor libertarian) attitudes about technology. If you feel so strongly about techno-optimism, create an article for it. Even if we were to include your science writer's take on the topic in the article on techno-progressivism, it should be mentioned at the end not the beginning to respect the flow of the article. Loremaster 13:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
There is considerably more to progressivism than optimism. And that's surely still true if one prefixes "techno-" to the terms. Many references to "techno-optimism" seem to deploy it as a pejorative reference to an attitude of naive technophilia which technoprogressive formulations explicitly disdain. Dale Carrico


Critics claim it is a form of scientism or positivism, an optimist ideology of science shared by Auguste Comte or Herbert Spencer.

I've removed the following text from the article for the following reasons:

  1. The sources of these criticisms are not referenced. Who are these critics? Can someone name one critic who has actually used the expression "techno-progressivism", which, we should not forget, was a neologism until recently. If Santa Sangre is the only critic, this would be a personal POV which should not be included in this page.
  2. Although I actually agree that "techno-progressivism" may be a form of positivism, the accusation that it is a form of scientism is unfounded in light of the content of the article. One should be careful not to confuse "techno-progressivism" with technophilia, techno-optimism, techno-utopianism or even (apolitical/libertarian) transhumanism.
  3. It would be more appropriate to create a Criticism section rather than include a (more legitimate) criticism in the definition of the term techno-progressivism.
  4. Insults (such as accusing me of being ignorant) violate the behavior guidelines of Wikipedia.

--Loremaster 15:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why i'm putting it back. Techno-progressivism, as techno-utopianism, identifies social progress with scientific progress. This is, bluntly, the definition of scientism. I've taken the NPOV precision of writing: "Critics claim". Their POV is certainly to be taken into account. "Insults" are because of unexplained rv; i thank you for the current explanations. Regards Santa Sangre 16:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting the definition of techno-progressivism. Social progress and scientific progress are not identified as identical. They are described as being potentially necessary to each other. This is a significant difference. I am therefore reverting out your comments from the article. Also, you did not address nor follow my other suggestions --Loremaster 17:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The article includes the statement: "the growth of scientific knowledge or the accumulation of technological powers will not represent the achievement of proper progress unless and until it is accompanied by a just distribution of the costs, risks, and benefits of these new knowledges and capacities." This is an explicit repudiation of scientism, and so it is unlcear to me what the problem is. Many technoprogressive positions stress the emerging interdependence of technological development and social struggle but such a thesis is hardly an invitation to reductionism or scientism. --Dale Carrico
Hello Dale. You might want to create a Wikipedia user account so we know someone else is not pretending to be you. Thanks! --Loremaster 19:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Who else writes in such long-ass convoluted sentences? My verbosity is self-authenticating! --Dale Carrico
Hehe. However, you will find having a user account very useful. Also, due to a recent scandal, you can't create a new article on Wikipedia without having a user account. It might only be a matter of time before that they forbid people who don't have a user account from simply editing existing articles. --Loremaster 16:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The following text doesn't seem to be a criticism of technoprogressivism at all. I'm not sure what it's a criticism of, but it doesn't belong under a criticism heading in this article:

Rhetorician Dale Carrico, an academic known for using term "techno-progressive" as
a shorthand to describe progressive politics that emphasize technoscientific issues,
[12] has expressed concern that transhumanist ideologues are using the term to describe
themselves, with the consequence of possibly misleading the public regarding their actual
views, which may or may not be compatible with critical techno-progressivism.[13]

Deviceminder (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Deviceminder brings up a good point. This is why I have changed the section title to Controversy but Wikipedia:Criticism guidelines still apply. --Loremaster (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

List of prominent techno-progressive advocates and critics[edit]

It doesn't say which are which. Or does "critics" mean "friendly critics and writers about" GangofOne 21:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A social critic who comes from a techno-progressive perspective. --Loremaster 22:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Bioconservatism article?[edit]

Where the fuck did the complete article on Bioconservatives go? That was a hugely valuable list.

It was deleted. --Loremaster 11:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The Biconservatism article did not survive a deletion debate so I merged the definition of bioconservatism with the Techno-progressivism article. However, I don't think it would be appropriate to have the list of notable bioconsevatives here since it would unbalance the article. --Loremaster 03:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Missed the deletion debate. What were the reasons? The term "bioconservative" is even used by some german philosophers like Dieter Birnbacher...
You can read the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioconservatism page for more details. --Loremaster 23:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


This article is rather narrow, and only talks in the context of human modification via biological or prosthetic means. Techno-progressivism is far broader, in that it sees science as a means to answer questions regarding sociological problems that hinder mankind from "progress". One can't do this through only slapping on a new pair of arms or legs. Techno-progressivism is physics, biotechnology, engineering, and economics, for the good of the people. It's not limited to Gattaca and Ghost in the Shell. -Biokinetica 17:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There is only one short sentence that mentions human modification through technological means:
Strong techno-progressive positions include support for the consensual genetic, prosthetic, and cognitive modification of human beings in particular.
The rest of the article actually focuses on the issues you discuss so I don't see what the problem is. --Loremaster 21:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the sentence and recently rephrased to say:
Strong techno-progressive positions include support for the civil right of a person to either maintain or modify his or her own mind and body, on his or her own terms, through informed, consensual recourse to, or refusal of, available therapeutic or enabling biomedical technology.
I hope this settle this issue once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am very curious about the inclusion of the phrase "especially if it is perceived to threaten a given social order or if it [is] used to further consolidate political or economic power in the hands of the few" -- to explain a bioconservative hesitancy about prosthetic intervention. The article explicitly indicates elsewhere that "both techno-progressivism and bioconservatism [which should both be plural, imo, since many importantly different current views qualify as instances of each stance], in their more moderate expressions, share an opposition to unsafe, unfair, undemocratic forms of technological development, and both recognize that such developmental modes can facilitate unacceptable recklessness and exploitation, exacerbate injustice and incubate dangerous social discontent." Clearly this statement is intended to focus on the specific normative force of what is contrued as biologically "natural" for *bio*conservative arguments. To introduce issues of the "consolidat[ion of] political or economic power in the hands of the few" misdirects attention from the specifically *bio*conservative politics of prosthetic and biomedical intervention in "human nature" into more conventional political considerations for which there are obviously familiar terms already on hand and in wide use. Also, the mention of a bioconservative worry about elitism here, following immediately after the heading "contrasting stance" might seem to suggest that technoprogressive stances do not share such a concern -- when it is obvious from the article itself as well as from the content of most of the work of the figures to whom technoprogressive viewpoints are attributed here (very much including me personally), that such concerns scarcely represent a *contrast* at all. I suspect the misdirection is polemical, certainly it is not clarifying. 05:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Dale Carrico

I agree with Carrico. I've deleted the dubious sentence. --Loremaster 08:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I pluralized "techno-progressivism" and "bioconservatism" in the paragraph in question. --Loremaster (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dale Carrico: Technocritic?[edit]

Some people have noticed that I replaced the term "rhetorician" with "technocritic" to describe Dale Carrico and want to revert it. However, according to the San Francisco Art Institute's biographical page on Carrico, the "focus of Carrico’s work, both of his writing and teaching, has been the ongoing provocation of technological development on personal and public life. He writes and teaches technocritical theory, both in its technocultural and technoethical aspects, including bioethics, neuroethics, roboethics, existential risk assessment, and some elements of environmental criticism and design theory." If one takes the time to read the Wikipedia article on technocriticism, we realize that "technocritic" is the most inclusive and informative term to describe Carrico. --Loremaster (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope the reason why User:Hispaniola is insisting that we use "rhetoric"(sic) as a descriptor for Dale Carrico isn't because the popular definition of word "rhetoric" is "insincere or grandiloquent language" when a "rhetorician" is actually someone engaged in the academic study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion. It would be an extremely stupid way of trying to make it seem as if Carrico's opinion should not taken seriously... --Loremaster (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As if anyone would take him seriously anyway... In his attacks on the way American Conservatives acted towards science (they created these opposing "monsters"), he shows no ethical cares, calls it dictatorship or something like any other rhetoric, forgetting that in Europe, for instance, there is no "war on science" or major restrictions or religious constraints despite being religious people, progresses are made, adult stem cells as in opposed to embrio stem cells (which is all the same thing to him) are widely investigated among other things, and cloning or chimerism are forbidden and we have ethical comissions for everything because things aren't neutral, their implications have to be calculated, and that goes from left to right political wings. He even attacked Senator Sam Brownback for forbidding chimerism, something that every civilized state, the EU or the UN and anyone with common sense rejectsor has already rejected. He keeps using extreme-left keywords in his blog like "patriarchal", "racist" and "puritan", ranting "Democracy" (there is no major connection between health and Democracy, and we're already enough equal; what does he want, everybody as a President?...), "reactionary" and "injustified privileges" (as if the Republicans and/or Conservatives weren't prone to the same diseases everyone else is and they wanted to keep everyone else sick while they have health, and forgetting that his solutions would only allow sick people to have more sick children, unless there is a major control of reproduction, which he stands for and says "it's not eugenics!", implicitely accepting the creation of mutants and cloning or "children" virtually without our DNA) - as if the things he's attacking in concrete were bad -, he's full of far-left views that he shuves in the middle of his technological ones as if they were part of them, like certain gay issues, being against the war on drugs calling it "racist" and "puritan" (as if addiction wasn't a problem or we had to suffer with increasing of drug traffic because it would be racist to the ones who produce drugs and get rich at the expense of others' lives) or pro-abortion (and he says he values "sentient" beings, whatever that means...), while being against keeping people the way were born and almost despizing what they are, claiming that what's "natural" has no value because of that, and as if we were less valuable than alterations made after we exist and that are not "us" per se, claiming that what's human isn't the sum of our characteristics but some abstract idea of "knowing more and improving ourselves" or something and speaking like people could live outside themselves, which is at least philosophically controverse. Plus, he just keeps attacking Religions on themselves just because of their views. His views are, as it can be seen on one wikipedia article, away from the mainstream, both politically and scientifically, and many of the things he crave for might not even ever exist or be created. This situation resembles the "panic" over Frankenstein in the XIXth century, and not only the preassumptions were scientifically innacurate but in the end the "legacy of Frankenstein" is reduced to simple medical and somehow rare practices, such as the use of electrical defribs, organ and tissue transplant and plastic surgery, most oftenly reconstructive of the natural and small tucks, and no one ever tried to make a body using body parts, much of this thanks to ethics; but he still acts like people were manicly start going to alter themselves. All this said, it would be an extremely stupid way of trying to make it seem as if Carrico's opinion should be taken seriously... (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the Techno-progressivism article. That being said, you seem to be a very confused individual because your long-winded rant against Carrico doesn't make any sense. --Loremaster (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Typical far-leftist rhetoric, accusing adversaries of mind "confusion" and diminishing other's arguments by saying they make no sense instead of commenting them to make theirs appear right. The ones who stand for these "principles" are the confused ones!... (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the Techno-progressivism article. If you have a problem with Dale Carrico, have the courage to post your comments on his blog - using your real name - where he can have the opportunity to defend himself. Otherwise, if you persist in using this page to attack him, me or anyone else, you will be reported and your IP address will be blocked. --Loremaster (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You're overreacting. There is plenty of criticism and opposition to his views, from people who is from science or just normal people, no need for me to say anything. As if your name was real too... Have the courage of not threatening to block people just because of their saner views, this "attack" is just to prove that he's a rhetoric. (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. I'm not overreacting. This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the Techno-progressivism article not to criticized or express opposition to Carrico's views.
  2. I don't need to use my real name simply to contribute to a Wikipedia article. However, if I decided to publicly attack a public figure, I would use my real name so that the person knows who is attacking him instead of doing under the cover of anonymity.
  3. I'm not threatening to block you because of your views. I am threatening to block you because you are violating Wikipedia's talk page guidelines.
  4. Your criticisms of Dale Carrico (and your sanity) would be taken more seriously if you knew that there is a difference between “rhetoric” (the art of using language to communicate effectively and persuasively) and a “rhethorician” (an academic who studies the discourses of a wide variety of domains)!
--Loremaster (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Peter Joseph and The Zeitgeist Movement[edit]

Peter Joseph founder of the group known as The Zeitgeist Movement was recently included by anonymous User: in the List of notable techno-progressive social critics of the Techno-progressivism article. I've undone this inclusion because 1) neither Joseph nor The Zeitgeist Movement have described themselves or been described by others as “techno-progressive”; and 2) Zeitgeist: The Movie explicitly stated that politics was a dead-end for social, economic and political change while Dale Carrico and the vast majority of techno-progressive thinkers would disagree with this statement. --Loremaster (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to Nature[edit]

The article (and the source) say the following:

"the bioconservative perspective is characterized by its defense of the natural, deployed as a moral category."

While often true, bioconservatism (to the extent that anyone would actually label themselves as such) does not necessarily involve claims that whatever is natural is inherently superior/worth defending/good simply because it is natural. I suppose "characterized" could be interpreted in several different ways, but most readers would probably come away from the article believing that to be the case. (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)