From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Transhumanism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2006.

Too much branding[edit]

There is too much commercial branding in this article ("h+" stuff). (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As stated in the article, h+ is a symbol for transhumanism in general. It is also an abbreviation for the former World Transhumanist Association, but that is a nonprofit organization and not a commercial entity.-Gloriamarie (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

POV nature of article[edit]

It seems that negative critiques of Transhumanism exceed a clear statement of the transhumanist views. Can this be corrected? John D. Croft (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Concurrency Argument[edit]

Believers of the concurrency argument, observe that, one can only prove an internal, not an externality (external reality). Transhumanism already is fully implemented-- that is to say, the era that is "relived" is the one that leads into the adoption of machine hosts. This enables the brain to develop normally till such a time that the transition can be made, and preserves the uniqueness. After all, its nurture and nature, not either or. Placing high regard on religious concepts such as pergatory, and things leading to an afterlife. For the simplest way, for the brain to accept an afterlife, is for it to truly believe there is one. The concurrency argument gets its name, because it is not mutually exclusive to followers of other religions. One can concurrently be of one faith, and believe in transhumanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:A380:A03:BDAD:9E40:787B:A371 (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Transhumanist films[edit]

There has been a Category:Transhumanist films which seems likely to be deleted as part of a CFD discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 23‎#Category:Transhumanist films.

Films noted as being Transhumanist include Hanna (film) and a couple more where the category was already deleted by an opponent of the term (i don't know which film articles were those), and also 12 films recently added by me to the category, which were noted in two sources ( a link to a Woodstock film festival with transhumanist billing, mentioning 2 films and a blog/opinion piece list of top 10 transhumanist films I believe that there is a genre of transhumanist films usefully identified as such. However many films in the genre would predate the term transhumanism itself, so sources are needed. Creating List of transhumanist films as a separate list or including such a list in a section of the Transhumanism article would be worthwhile. For the record, the films cited as transhumanist in those 2 sources, anyhow, are: 2B (film) 2009, pilot movie of Caprica (2009 ish tv series); Avatar (2009 film), Gattaca 1997, The Terminator, The Matrix, WALL-E, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde (1931 film), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 2004, Brazil (1985 film), Metropolis (1927 film); 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) (1968). Hope this helps with some future development here.

Anyone know of academic articles describing transhumanism which mention any films? --doncram 17:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User:WillMonrovie and Zoltan Istvan[edit]

User:WillMonrovie appears to be a WP:SPA inserting information about Zoltan Istvan into several articles, usually with excess detail, and almost always full of WP:PUFFERY. For example, The Transhumanist Wager, Seasteading, and here at Transhumanism (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and most recently 8. Each time does get more and more acceptable per Wikipedia standards, and in truth there's probably room to mention Istvan's blogs somewhere, but the evident POV is concerning. --— Rhododendrites talk |  23:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


"Some elements of transhumanist thought and research are considered by critics to be within the realm of fringe science because it departs significantly from the mainstream" This is stated in the present tense, but is from a decade ago. It needs an updated source or removal. It also requires a "such as" so the reader can evaluate what kinds of things are so considered. BeCritical 00:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)