Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Too long?

This article seems too long to me, and merely by its length appears to assign transhumanism rather more world importance than it currently has. For example, it is as long as the entire Philosophy article, or the entire Art article. (And that isn't because the latter two articles are too short.)

Despite the substantial criticisms section, this article has the air of a promotional pamphlet for a new utopian cult, encompassing as it does science, art, fiction, 'spirituality', a weird symbol (H+ / >H), etc.

Taking art for example, just how many transhumanist artists are there (who have heard of and use the term themselves), anyway? More than a handful? Are any notable? Does this article mention them in order to satisfy a public who is seeking information about a notable artistic movement, or is it just trying to promote an extremely fringe artistic idea (movement is too strong a word for it)?

I am not so much criticizing the subject matter of the article, but the fact that the article devotes so much space to it. Ben Finn 16:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The comprehensiveness (lenght) of the Transhumanism article is one of the reasons why it was identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community and therefore featured on the main page of Wikipedia. As for your concerns that this article has the air of a promotional pamphlet, you should take into consideration the fact that a major contributor to this article was a self-described "bioconservative" critical of transhumanism whose mission was to ensure a neutral point of view. --Loremaster 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
If all the material is salient and well sourced (and it basically is), I don't see the problem. A thorough article is a good thing. I'm always open to constructive suggestions about hiving off parts of articles to make them more manageable, but I don't think there's any necessity for anything like that at the moment. Metamagician3000 03:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The art section has been bugging me as well. Most of the novels listed were not written by transhumanist authors, seem to contain no explicit mention of transhumanism, and are included only because they contain plot elements that, in the opinion of some Wikipedia editors, resemble ideas common in transhumanist speculations. How many of these novels have been said to contain transhumanist elements in reviews or analyses from notable third-party sources? Such attribution is especially necessary for the retroactive application of the transhumanist label to ideas in works from the 40s and 50s, before the term was coined. -- Schaefer (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Unlike the lenght issue, this is actually a partially valid criticism. I'lll work on improving this section sometime in the coming weeks. --Loremaster 19:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Transhumanism Posthumanism

This article and the article on posthumanism state: "Transhumanism is sometimes erroneously referred to as "posthumanism", especially in North America. However, posthumanists in the humanities and the arts are critical of transhumanism, in part,..."

This is misleading or wrong, for several reasons:

i) The use of "erroneously" implies that there is a hegemonic or even an uncontested meaning of the term posthumanism, which is not the case. Transhumanism is often seen as a variant of posthumanism or as its "political arm". The common main goal of transhumanism and of this kind of posthumanism is the creation of another intelligent species (a radically altered humanity - transhuman, but gradually becoming posthuman -, a "race" of "enhanced" animals or a "race" of intelligent artificial beings)

ii) "especially in North America" is definitely wrong as one can easily see when checking the Dutch [1]and German [2] articles on posthumanism; I think the best solution to the problem is the one chosen in the Spanish article [3] which states that there are two different meanings of the term. Maybe there could be two articles, as it is common Wikipedia practice.

iii) However, there are several scholars who have argued that both posthumanisms have much more in common than their respective proponents realise, so a one-article-solution is also an option.

As it is now (articles "posthumanism", "transhumanism" and "posthuman (future)"), it is extremely misleading, because the "intuitive" term for someone whose long-term goal is the creation of a "posthumanity" (see first image at [4]) is... "posthumanist". Accordingly, I have deleted "erroneously" and "especially in North America" and would recommend further changes.Bureb62

Hello Bureb,

  1. I actually agree that the use of "erroneously" is inappropriate and I support it's deletion. However, I would argue that the view that transhumanism is a variant of posthumanism or its political arm may be a minority view which one would need sources to support.
  2. I also agree that the phrase "especially in North America" is not accurate and I support its deletion.
  3. I would be opposed to the merging of the transhumanism and posthumanism in light of the fact that there many scholars who argue that transhumanism and posthumanism is in fact two different current of thoughts.
  4. I disagree that having these three articles is misleading. On the contrary, I think it helps clarify the distinctions between these terms. By the way, although there is a posthuman (human evolution) article, there is no posthuman (future) article.

--Loremaster (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Loremaster,

  1. There are many articles who discuss transhumanism or extropianism as examples of posthumanism (either calling it "posthumanism" or referring to Moravec, Kurzweil...). Moreover, even some of the "critical posthumanists" in philosophy and media theory, do accept the notion that Moravec's ideology is a "posthumanism" and call it derisively "complacent" or "apocalyptic".
  2. ok
  3. I didn't mean to suggest a merger of the articles transhumanism and posthumanism; I would propose to have two articles on posthumanism or one article on posthumanism which covers both views/concepts.
  4. As it is now, we have posthumanism and "posthuman", reserving the term "posthumanism" for the philosophical theories. This is to what I object to, because there definitely is another use of the term "posthumanism", be it a minority view or not. (Internationally, I would say, it's "the majority view", or to be more precise: the more widely used concept. In any case, it's not an "either-or", but there are two different, albeit inter-related meanings of a term.)

However, I wouldn't recommend to add much more on "posthumanism" in the transhumanism article, but propose the following modifications: "Transhumanism is sometimes referred to as an activist variant of "posthumanism". (references to be added) In this view, the common main goal of transhumanism and posthumanism is the creation of another intelligent species (a radically altered humanity - transhuman, but gradually becoming posthuman -, a "race" of "enhanced" animals or a "race" of intelligent artificial beings). However, there are critics of transhumanism in the humanities and the arts who call themselves "posthumanists" (references) and argue, for instance, that transhumanism incorporates and extends many of the flaws of Enlightenment humanism, namely scientific imperialism. (references already there) Some of them have delineated a "critical" posthumanism from a "complacent" or "apocalyptic" posthumanism and from "transhumanism" as a variant of the latter. (reference) Other scholars have argued that both posthumanisms have more in common than their respective proponents realise. (reference) Transhumanists, however, often stress that their ideas are the logical consequence of humanism and enligtenment thought (no references needed, because Bostrom's essay on the history of transhumanist ideas follows in the article).

If you think, that this makes sense, I could add some references. There are many in French, but I would look for some essays in English, too. Bureb62

If you can find English references for all these claims, I could support the addition of this text somewhere in the Transhumanism article. However, I am currently satisfied with my recent revision inspired by your text. --Loremaster (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
There are many references, so the paragraph could be:
"Transhumanism is often referred to as a social-activist variant of "posthumanism" by its conservative (Fukuyama), Christian ( and progressive critics (, but also by pro-transhumanist scholars who, for example, characterise it as a subset of "philosophical posthumanism" ( A common feature of transhumanism and philosophical posthumanism is the future vision of a new intelligent species, into which humanity will evolve, which will supplement humanity or supersede it. Transhumanism stresses the evolutionary perspective, including sometimes the creation of a highly intelligent animal species by way of cognitive enhancement (Hughes 2004), but generally clings to a posthuman future as the final goal of evolution (Bostrom, Spanish wikipedia article transhumanismo). Nevertheless, the idea to create intelligent artificial beings, proposed, for example, by roboticist Hans Moravec, has influenced transhumanism (Bostrom, Hughes). There are critics of transhumanism in the humanities and the arts who call themselves "posthumanists" and argue, for instance, that transhumanism incorporates and extends many of the flaws of Enlightenment humanism, namely scientific imperialism (why "perfectibilism" instead??). (references already there) This posthumanism has also been referred to as "cultural posthumanism" ( Others have delineated this cultural posthumanism, as a "critical posthumanism", from a "complacent" or "apocalyptic" posthumanism and from transhumanism as a variant of the latter. (Badmington, Neil, Theorizing Posthumanism, in: Cultural Critique 53, Winter 2003, 10-27, access: Other scholars have argued that both posthumanisms have more in common than their respective proponents realise. (Langdon Winner 2005, "Resistance is Futile: The Post-human Condition and Its Advocates,", in: The Future of Human Nature, edited by Harold Bailie and Timothy Casey, M.I.T. Press, 385-411) However, transhumanists often stress that their ideas are the logical consequence of humanism and enlightenment thought (no references needed, because Bostrom's essay on the history of transhumanist ideas follows in the article)." Bureb62 —Preceding comment was added at 11:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, this text is too long for the lead of the article. However, I would support seperating into two paragraphs. The first one would be part of the lead (which it already is) while the second one could be added somewhere in the Theory and practice section. --Loremaster (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, "Theory and Practice" is a good choice, but "precursor" in the Lead Section might be misleading. I understand, you refer to "transhuman" as a state of being which is a precursor of the "posthuman condition". However, the "posthumanism" of Moravec, Minsky... is an intellectual precursor of the "transhumanism" of Bostrom, Hughes... Anyway, the reference to Miah shouldn't be here, because this is not his view. By the way, I could wikify the references, if you like me to do, after you have included the corrected text in "Theory and Practice". Bureb62 —Preceding comment was added at 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I've replaced the word "precursor" with "successor". --Loremaster (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, could you rewrite this text removing any reference to cultural posthumanism and focus on complancent posthumanism and transhumanism? --Loremaster (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, I wouldn't chose "Theory and Practice". It has a focus on transhumanist thinking, so the modified paragraph might actually better fit into "Controversy", in its introduction (above "Some of the most widely known critiques..."). The controversy on the concepts of "posthumanism" and "transhumanism" and their relationships with different traditions of (post-)Enlightenment and recent social theory is a kind of "meta controversy" which informs all of the more specific controversies. In any case, one needs to shortly characterise "critical" or "cultural" posthumanism, if only because the transhumanists themselves are referring to it. Bureb62
The modified paragraph: "It is controversial whether transhumanism is a branch of posthumanism and how "posthumanism" should be conceptualised with regard to transhumanism. The latter is often referred to as a variant or social-activist form of posthumanism by its conservative (Fukuyama), Christian ( and progressive critics (, but also by pro-transhumanist scholars who, for example, characterise it as a subset of "philosophical posthumanism" ( A common feature of transhumanism and philosophical posthumanism is the future vision of a new intelligent species, into which humanity will evolve, which will supplement humanity or supersede it. Transhumanism stresses the evolutionary perspective, including sometimes the creation of a highly intelligent animal species by way of cognitive enhancement (Hughes, James (2004). Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-4198-1), but clings to a posthuman future as the final goal of evolution (Bostrom, Spanish wikipedia article transhumanismo). Nevertheless, the idea to create intelligent artificial beings, proposed, for example, by roboticist Hans Moravec, has influenced transhumanism (Bostrom, Hughes). Moravec's ideas and transhumanism have also been characterised as a "complacent" or "apocalyptic" variant of posthumanism and contrasted with "critical posthumanism" in humanities and the arts. (Badmington, Neil, Theorizing Posthumanism, in: Cultural Critique 53, Winter 2003, 10-27, access: While such a "critical posthumanism" would offer resources for rethinking the relations of humans and increasingly sophisticated machines, transhumanism and similar posthumanisms are, in this view, not abandoning obsolete concepts of the "autonomous liberal subject" but are expanding its "prerogatives" into the realm of the posthuman. (Hayles, Katherine (1999). How We Became Posthuman. The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-321460) Transhumanist self-characterisations as a continuation of humanism and Enlightenment thinking correspond with this view. (e.g. Bostrom) However, others have argued that all posthumanist endeavors, transhumanism as well as so-called "critical posthumanism", amount to a shift away from concerns about justice, from the retailoring of human institutions and from other Enlightenment preoccupations, toward narcissistic longings for a transcendence of the human body in quest of more exquisite ways of being. (Langdon Winner 2005, "Resistance is Futile: The Post-human Condition and Its Advocates,", in: The Future of Human Nature, edited by Harold Bailie and Timothy Casey, M.I.T. Press, 385-411). In this view, transhumanism is abandoning the goals of humanism, Enlightenment, and progressive politics. Bureb62

Thank you, Bureb. Give me a few days to think about how to best integrate such a long text, which may deserve its own section:

It is a matter of debate whether transhumanism is a branch of posthumanism and how posthumanism should be conceptualised with regard to transhumanism. The latter is often referred to as a variant or activist form of posthumanism by its conservative, Christian and progressive critics, but also by pro-transhumanist scholars who, for example, characterise it as a subset of "philosophical posthumanism". A common feature of transhumanism and philosophical posthumanism is the future vision of a new intelligent species, into which humanity will evolve, which will supplement humanity or supersede it. Transhumanism stresses the evolutionary perspective, including sometimes the creation of a highly intelligent animal species by way of cognitive enhancement, but clings to a posthuman future as the final goal of evolution.
Nevertheless, the idea to create intelligent artificial beings, proposed, for example, by roboticist Hans Moravec, has influenced transhumanism. Moravec's ideas and transhumanism have also been characterised as a "complacent" or "apocalyptic" variant of posthumanism and contrasted with "critical posthumanism" in humanities and the arts. While such a "critical posthumanism" would offer resources for rethinking the relations of humans and increasingly sophisticated machines, transhumanism and similar posthumanisms are, in this view, not abandoning obsolete concepts of the "autonomous liberal subject" but are expanding its "prerogatives" into the realm of the posthuman.
Transhumanist self-characterisations as a continuation of humanism and Enlightenment thinking correspond with this view. However, others have argued that all posthumanist endeavors, transhumanism as well as so-called "critical posthumanism", amount to a shift away from concerns about justice, from the retailoring of human institutions and from other Enlightenment preoccupations, toward narcissistic longings for a transcendence of the human body in quest of more exquisite ways of being. In this view, transhumanism is abandoning the goals of humanism, Enlightenment, and progressive politics.

--Loremaster (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Bureb, is there a way you could add the expression "immanentize the eschaton" in your text? --Loremaster (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have done so (below), but I see two problems: 1. There is the danger that all gets mixed up. I would say that "immanentize the eschaton" better fits into the "Spirituality" or "Hubris" sections, because it's about religion. 2. "Immanentize the eschaton" is an idea which is part of an important, heterogeneous and rather complex tradition of philosophy and theology in which communism/Marxism, fascism and other ideologies are charactersised as utopian, secularised and flawed eschatalogy. But so far only some Christian conspiracy theorists (such as the Collins brothers) seem to have used this particular concept to describe transhumanism. Anyway, here are two (not necessarily alternative) proposals:
Section "Controversy", "Hubris": "Christian theologians and lay activists of several churches and denominations have expressed similar objections to transhumanism and claimed that Christians already enjoy, however post mortem, what radical transhumanism promises such as indefinite life extension or the abolition of suffering.[70][71] In this view, transhumanism is just another representative of the long line of utopian movements which "immanentize the eschaton" and try to create heaven on earth."
As a new paragraph at the end of a possible new section (or in "Controversy", what I would still recommend): "Another approach, which is used, for example, by Christian critics, characterises transhumanism as the culmination of the modern secular progressive and utopian movements (including sometimes right-wing totalitarian ideologies) and as an attempt to create heaven on earth. This relates to the notion of an immanentization of the eschaton and to characterisations of transhumanism and of modern utopian movements as neo-Gnostic." Bureb62
Thank you. I've decided to go with option 1. --Loremaster (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
In the article, "utopian movements" is missing, maybe unintentionally? Bureb62 —Preceding comment was added at 14:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It was actually a wiki code problem which I fixed. --Loremaster (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

After thinking it over, I am wondering if we should not include a new version of your text in the Currents section, which needed to be improved anyway. What do you think? --Loremaster (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Might be an elegant way to improve the Currents section, but does the text fit into it? The text is about criticisms of transhumanism, about the controversy on definitions of posthumanism and about a rather academic discussion. The currents of transhumanism (I'm not familiar with most of them) seem to be a different issue. If you don't see a way to integrate the text in the Controversy section (I still think it would be a good introduction, because it's about a "meta controversy"), another option may be the inclusion into the "Spirituality" section, then renamed, for example, "Sprituality and the Legacy of Humanism and the Enlightenment". In such a section, the text could follow after the last sentence of the "Spirituality" section (after footnote 59) and be introduced with a sentence like this: "The relationships between transhumanism and the Enlightenment (and other humanist or progressive) traditions are also discussed with regard to the broader concept of "posthumanism". It is a matter of debate whether transhumanism (and so on)" In any case, one should avoid the impression that the "critical posthumanism" in the humanities and arts is a "current" of transhumanism. Still another option would be to shorten the text and/or to split it, so that it better fits into existing sections. Please feel free to do so, if you deem it feasible and worthwhile. Bureb62 —Preceding comment was added at 10:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. Let me think it over. --Loremaster (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
After thinking it over, I would like to create a new section which focuses on the relations between humanism, posthumanism and transhumanism. One source would be Transhumanism: The Next Step? by Patrick Inniss. What do you think the title of this section should be? --Loremaster (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the source. Interesting stuff. Concerning the title of the section: How about a question? (such as "From humanism to trans- and posthumanism?" Or maybe just "Humanism - Transhumanism - Posthumanism". Bureb62 —Preceding comment was added at 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I a section about the confusion over posthumanism (which really is something different) and transhumanism would be in order. Why not just call it "Posthumanism and transhumanism", with appropriate links and references. I think we should avoid being tendentious or putting views that are other than those of the major figures in these movements. If someone important sees a connection that is not seen by Max More, James Hughes, etc., themselves, we should be careful to say "Foo sees transhumanism as a variety of posthumanism in that ... {etc.]. We need to be careful not to add to all the existing confusion when these terms are used loosely, as they so often are. Metamagician3000 (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we should be careful to say "Foo sees transhumanism as a variety of posthumanism in that ... {etc.]", but I don't agree that all we have to deal here with is a confusion of terms. In any event, such "isms" are very dynamic terms, open to interpretation, so we cannot judge that a concept is "really... something different", but have to point out differences and similarities. We cannot confine ourselves to the major figures of the "movement", because this is also an article on transhumanism as a philosophy, not only about the transhumanist movement. The philosophy of transhumanism is closely interrelated with the ideas known as "posthumanism" (Minsky, Moravec ao). The confusion largely stems from the fact that there is another use of the term "posthumanism", in humanities and arts, and we should clarify this. However, we should also mention the view of critics, such as Winner, who argue that both posthumanisms are closely related to each other. Finally, I agree with Loremaster that it si a good idea to take account of humanism and the article by Innies, so I don't think "Posthumanism and transhumanism" is a good title. Bureb62
I have two suggestions:
1. After humanism
2. Relation(s) to humanism and posthumanism
--Loremaster 15:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I would go for Number 3, because it's precise. Number 1 is catchy, and also a good title, but maybe promising too much. Bureb
What's Number 3? --Loremaster 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Number 2, scusi.
OK but I've temporarily decided to abandon the use of such title when adding your text. However, could you write a summary of the article on humanism and transhumanism I provied a link to? --Loremaster (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to add your text to the introductory subsection of the Theory section. We now need to add references using the standard format already being used in the article. Can you work on this? --Loremaster (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Done.Bureb62 —Preceding comment was added at 12:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I have also inserted the sentence "Some secular humanists conceive transhumanism as an offspring of the humanist freethought movement and argue that transhumanists differ from the humanist mainstream by having a specific focus on technological approaches to resolving human concerns and on the issue of immortality.", referring to the source you had given 18:12, 27 November 2007 (the article by Inniss).Bureb62
Perfect. I've fine-tuned the entire the text. Are you satisfied with the end result? --Loremaster (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is better now. Thank you.Bureb62 —Preceding comment was added at 21:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


From : The author Jeremy Rifkin, a longtime critic of life patenting and the biotech industry, disagrees. "Transhumanism is the ultimate illustration of how Enlightenment rationalism can easily run amok and create extreme pathology," he says. In their faith that they can harness such powerful technologies to achieve their social ends, the transhumanists are falling victim to an old, misguided Western faith in human perfectibility. Rifkin's fear is that under the guise of progress, the public will be seduced by a new technology whose destructive power far exceeds its benefits. --Loremaster (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I would still say that scientific imperialism and perfectibilism are intertwined, but not the same. So maybe better mention both? By the way: Since the last time that I had looked at it, the article has become even better. Great work.Bureb62
Thanks. I agree we should mention both. --Loremaster (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, I've decided to delete the posthumanist criticism of transhumanism from the lead. --Loremaster (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
We need to make sure that this is not already covered by what we've said about Rifkin and other opponents of the relevant technologies. Of course, such opponents will put their points in numerous ways. That doesn't mean that we have to cite every formulation. If someone has up-dated an argument already covered - and this one is really about hubris, destruction, etc., - and it's worthwhile, them we update our text. We don't keep adding things and creating a longer and longer article. As for lead, please everyone try to keep it to no more than three paras and remember it is supposed to be a very broad overview of the topic/article. Metamagician3000 (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Although I agree with you, you might have misunderstood what this debate was about. A previous version of the lead of the Transhumanism article contained the following paragraph, which I wrote:
Transhumanism is therefore sometimes referred to as "posthumanism" or its activist successor.[1] However, there are cultural critics of transhumanism in the humanities and the arts who call themselves "posthumanists" and argue, for instance, that transhumanism incorporates and extends many of the flaws of Enlightenment humanism, namely perfectibilism.[2][3]
Bureb didn't understand why I used the word "perfectibilism" so I presented this quote from Rifkin to explain what was meant by the use of this word. However, I wasn't suggesting adding this quote to the Transhumanism article. Regardless, I deleted the second sentence of that paragraph from the lead. --Loremaster 15:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I'm finding it a bit difficult catching up with the nuances of what is being discussed at the moment. I've been on a semi-wiki-break for quite awhile. I should say, though, that I can't see any huge problems with the changes that have happened with article. Metamagician3000 08:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fringe Science

I've requested citation for this claim in the controversy section, the request was repeatedly deleted. Isn't it a misuse of the term (transhumanism might rely on "fringe science," but is not in itself science at all, it is a claim about what should be sought after and not what is actually known). --Darkmusashi (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I rephrased a sentence for which you asked a reference into one that is more nuanced and provided a reference for it. This sentence doesn't claim that transhumanism is a science but that "many transhumanist proposals rely on fringe science". There is a difference. --Loremaster (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

It takes up about a third of the article. Undue weight? Zazaban (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed several times on this talk page and resolved with the opinion of a Wikipedia administrator: The existence and lenght of the controversy section (which contains many arguments for transhumanism) has been not judged acceptable but also part of the reason why this article was identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedian community. --Loremaster (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Mikael Häggström's suggestions

The split of Theory and practice into smaller sections

I think the Theory and practice section should return to being split into smaller sections, because it's very hard to get an overview of it now. Each paragraph is very well written, but there is a lack of order in it when some is about theory and some about practic aspects, making it hard to find individual information. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Currents and spirituality a part of theory

I think currents and spirituality should return to be viewed as a part of transhumanism theory. Currents may, however, be separate, since they involve both theory and practice, but I see no reason why spirituality shouldn't.

It is a featured article, but it doesn't prevent it from being even better. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Having Human enhancement the Main article for the technologies themselves

I think the Main article for the technologies themselves described in this article should be Human enhancement. Else, this article should be merged with that one. Accordingly, there should be a link marking that main article - else readers might think this is all WIkipedia has on the subject. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why any merger is required. The movement that supports human enhancement is transhumanism, and it is a high-profile movement in the general culture. The article on human enhancement should be quite different, e.g. looking more at different concepts of what "enhancement" means, the supposed therapy/enhancement distinction (e.g the views of Norman Daniels), what people who are not necessarily transhumanists but are sympathetic to enhancement (such as John Harris and Nick Agar) say, what their opponents say, etc. There's no reason why we can't have a full-scale human enhancement article in its own right. There's no need to merge it with the transhumanism article. What I would be happy to do, if progress were made with a really good human enhancement article, is look at whether specific bits of the transhumanism article would be better placed over there. I can imagine that possibility. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually also against such a merge. My proposal is rather to have it linked clearly from the techniques that transhumanism support, instead of as described as a synonym of it - like in this version. Mikael Häggström 13:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
So, Metamagician, the question is whether or not you support the changes to the Transhumanism article that Mikael had made in the version he has linked to. Personally, I only take issue with need of creating an "Antagonists" subsection. --Loremaster 13:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
That version looks okay to me. I just wonder whether there's a subtlety here, though. Not all of those technologies are inherently about human enhancement - in fact, none of them may be, and in any event there's no consensus among bioethicists, etc., as to what the expression "human enhancement" really means or whether it's even a useful expression. That' not a reason not to make the changes suggested, but we might want to fine-tune them at some point, keeping this in mind. Metamagician3000 08:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I admit the header "Antagonists" was a bad idea, and until something more feasible is found it might better fill out the text beneath Theory without further specification. Regarding the link to human enhancement, on the other hand, I'm sure such a fine-tuning is much easier to do after that clear distinction between the subjects, instead of as expressed as a synonym as it is now.Mikael Häggström 08:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, Mikael, I suggest you make the changes as you think best, in the light of what has been said by Loremaster and by me, and your own comment just made. I'll reserve my right to fine-tune the two articles but not in a reckless or non-consultative way. All this work seems to be for the good of the article. Metamagician3000 09:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your approval. You may fine-tune it as much as you want. After all, its when everybody contributes I think the best result is made. Mikael Häggström 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've done some fine-tuning. Do you have any problems with it? --Loremaster (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Transhumanism and alarmism

Kyle Barbour,

When Francis Fukuyama designated transhumanism as one of the world's most dangerous ideas, many transhumanists and non-transhumanists argued that Fukuyama's warning was alarmist that is to say needless. The issue is not whether the warning is truly alarmist but the fact that many have called it alarmist.

That being said, the lead of the Transhumanism article never explicitly or implicity calls Fukuyama or other detractors of transhumanism alarmists. There is simply an internal link to the expression "world's most dangerous idea". It's quite a stretch to suggest that this internal link is equivalent to calling all detractors of transhumanism, including or excluding Fukuyama, alarmists. --Loremaster (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's equivalent to calling Francis Fukuyama's opinion alarmist, which is an obvious violation of NPOV. All we can neutrally report is that some people consider his views alarmist. Linking his idea to the article Alarmism clearly takes the view that his warning is an example of such. -- Schaefer (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
No. It's the very notion of "world's most dangerous ideas" that is linked to the Alarmism article rather than Fukuyama's opinion that "transhumanism is the world's most dangerous idea". Furthermore, the Alarmism article states: "The following lists some areas where warnings have been called alarmist. Inclusion in the list does not imply that the warnings are needless, only that some people have called them needless." --Loremaster (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I created an article for World's most dangerous ideas which redirects to the Alarmism article. --Loremaster (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
A hidden link to "alarmism" from world-most-d is POV; so is doing it via a redirect. Since the only point of the redirect is this hidden linkage, I've deleted it. And reverted the changes to the alarmism article. This article could say "Transhumanism has been described by one outspoken opponent as the world's most dangerous idea, but this is widely viewed as alarmist" but it hardly seems necessary; calling TH w-m-d is fairly obviously over the top William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Issuing early warnings on the ideas that will supposedly be most destructive in the 21st century is the definition of alarmism in light of all the counter-arguments that they automatically illicited. So there was nothing POV about an internal link to the Alarmism article from the expression "world's most dangerous ideas". That being said, to avoid getting into a needless dispute over such a trivial issue I won't try to put back the internal link. --Loremaster (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it was a li'l POV-ish to create a link to Alarmism from something like "world's most dangerous ideas". I think the idea floated by William M. Connolley (talk makes a lot of sense as long as the claim about who the people are who "view" it that way is sourced. Metamagician3000 (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not there was a POV issue with the internal link I added, William's idea is unnecessary since we already quote someone (Bailey) countering Fukuyama's claim by implying he is an alarmist. --Loremaster 13:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Is it just me, or does this article seem to be written from a position of defending transhumanism? One example, in the caption of the image of Patricia Piccinini's work, the line "Transhumanists would call for the eventual recognition of self-aware parahumans as persons." is tacked on.

Two-thirds of the article is simply giving reasons why it's not a good idea. If anything, it's slanted the other way. Zazaban 21:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
1. The line was added to the caption to justify the inclusion of this image in this article.
2. In light of the fact there is an equal number of readers who think the article has a "pro-transhumanist bias" as there as those who think it has an "anti-transhumanist bias", I think this is evidence that the Transhumanism article is relatively balanced.
--Loremaster 21:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing technology?

I think the section Technologies of interest is missing a section on drugs such as nootropics and bahaviour-modification drugs. While not a core emerging NBIC technology, James Hughes and Nick Bostrom have spoken in favour of the liberalization of drug-laws and supported the investigation on new drugs while, on the opposite side, Fukuyama has denounced ritalin or prozac as a first step to dehumanization. --Varano (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, behavior-modifying drugs fall under Neurotechnology/Cognitive science. --Loremaster (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
That was my first guess, but it seems the subject of enhancing drugs doesn't appear there either. There is something in Psychopharmacology, but not much. --Varano (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained Deletion

Why was so much deleted? It was restored and then deleted again. This seemed like a good article to me and I would like to use it as a reference to a paper I am writing. Can we have the full article back? Thanks. (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a mistake. I was editing Wikipedia through a phone rather than a computer so it was hard to notice that mistake. I thank you and Human.v2.0 for noticing and correcting. --Loremaster (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(In the tone of Jeff Foxworthy) You might be a wiki addict if you make a habit of editing your watched pages from your phone on a regular basis. Heh. Honest mistake, but it gave me a laugh for the morning. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hehe. Well, it's not a habit. I was testing it out because I sometimes have problems having stable access to a computer. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Natasha Vita-More

This article is adulterated by the references to Natasha Vita-More; the referencing articles look to be authored by her, and various lines (such as "In addition to the work of Natasha Vita-More, curator of the Transhumanist Arts & Culture center, transhumanist themes appear in the visual and performing arts.[61]) break an encyclopedic tone, as well as disrupt the way the arts section is written. Furthermore, her "art" is hardly more than a silhouette of a person with text overlays that appear to have been added in MS Paint. 00:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, to avoid a dispute, give me some time to develop a solution. --Loremaster 14:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. I can't see why she should be the flagship mention of transhumanism in art, especially considering the "example" given. --Human.v2.0 15:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Although this might not be the "best" example, it's most well-know-and-used and easily accessible example of her work. As for the issue of flagship, she was not only the first self-described transhumanist artist but she pioneered the transhumanist arts and culture movement, regardless of how relatively marginal it has remained. ---- Loremaster (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
PS, the source listed for Vita-More raised my eyebrow when I checked it. Personally, I think that a "reference" needs to be more than a link to another Wikipedia entry. If there is some other kind of reference (ISDN number, publication, web site, something) that would be great, but what we have there now is not a reference, it's a plug. --Human.v2.0 16:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that her book is self-published so it doesn't have a ISDN number. ---- Loremaster (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well according to my self-published book, "There's No Such Person as Natasha Vita-More," Natasha Vita-More doesn't exist!-- (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
A description of Natasha Vita-More's book on her website. ---- Loremaster (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
With commentary by people such as R. U. Sirius... Clicking on the names of the people results in a technology vendor, a connection timeout, a 404, an Amazon link, and a German web page (the most credible-looking of the lot).-- (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
R. U. Sirius. ---- Loremaster (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hm, my mistake. Well, I did work with a guy named Easy Rider...-- (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd also say that a reference needs to be something other than her own page trying to sell the book. It's just a hair-breath away from self-promotion. Would that mean that I can start citing as a 'reference' about a topic covered in a book? A store is just that - a store. So far all I'm seeing about Vita-More is what she is saying about herself and absolutely no reason why all other transhuman artists should be "in addition to" her. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
See my comments below. --Loremaster (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, so it is self-published (which I did note from the Wiki article about the book). Is there a review of it somewhere? A commentary in some new source, book reviewer, or person important to the field? I have seen articles/comments removed with far better sources than this one. If the best citation available for her book is a wiki article about the book, then she should certainly not be writen into the article in a way that makes her seem like the "standard" of transhumanism in art. My point is that just because it is self-published (or especially because it is self-published) does not mean that it can be cited as a source just on basis of having a Wiki article. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The reference is neither the website nor the Wikipedia article. The reference is the book itself. I simply added a link to the website and the Wikipedia article for the convenience of readers who may want to know more about the book or the transhumanist arts and culture center. That being said, I agree with you that this self-published book is not an objective nor the best source so I'll replace it when I find something more appropriate. --Loremaster (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed as well. Justify their inclusion rather than "develop a solution" for keeping them in the article. If a justification can't be provided immediately then the references should be removed until such time as the references can be justified. Wikipedia certainly is not built around the premise you can insert questionable content and then leave it until you "develop a solution" [which I read as come up with a ridiculous reason to keep questionable content in place] (User: Who Cares) 11 January 2008
Agreed, which is why I replaced the citation of Vita-More's book as a source a long time ago with a link to the TAC FAQ. --Loremaster (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
However, I've now replaced the link a New York Times article on Vita-More. --Loremaster (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Addendum - I suspect Loremaster is Natasha Vita-More or a friend of hers. Note Loremaster also spends a fair amount of time defending Vita-More's entry on Wikipedia which has been substantially culled from the dubious exercise in personal glorification it formerly was. I contribute money to Wikipedia to support a quality, objective resource not a place for someone to manufacture imagined significance. (User: Who Cares?) 11 January 2008
*LOL* In light of the disputes I have had with Vita-More on the Talk:Transhumanism page, which can be found in the archives, this accusation is ludicrous. --Loremaster (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes because no one could ever have two identities on the internet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Care to sign and timestamp your comment? --Loremaster (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Origins of Transhumanism

Although the term itself did indeed came into usage only in the late 1950s, the theories that have advanced to this point of its development can actually be traced back to the Carnegie Institution and Rockefeller Foundation, circa 1904, which in turn laid the groundwork for what in fact amounts to the same thing, conceptually, as the transhumanist concept: eugenics. Edwin Black's War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, a book with as inflamatory a title as ever written, contains no less than 49 pages of footnotes detailing the advancement of the concept from the late 19th and early 20th centuries to the most universally remembered chambers of horrors in history, Germany circa 1941-1945. While admitting, in the final chapters of his work, several of the possible advancements conceivable for future medicinal work, i.e. coding genetic predilection toward disease out of the human subjects involved, Black's overall thesis as to the dangers of eugenical, transhumanist thinking is this: if it went so wrong once (the American contemporaries of the Nazi scientists, he showed, generally approved highly of the methods underway in Germany, several of the most notorious having been suggested by them to begin with)...what's to keep "subjective human thinking" (to give it one name, alright) from doing so multiple occasions, regardless of how inhuman ("posthuman"?) we claim we would never allow ourselves to become?

I bring all this up because I am now considering adding the extensive connections to eugenics to this article, which could very quickly start major controversy, given how gruesome the subject often becomes. I would seek to avoid that, by beginning discussion now of whether factual reporting/referencing of the Nazistic scientific rationales that precede modern transhumanist theorization would invite mass ideological warfare or not.

--Chr.K. (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As the main contributor to this article, I would be strongly opposed to the inclusion of such contentious content in the History or Theory sections of the article. However, I would have no problem with a consice summary being included in the Specter of coercive eugenicism (Eugenics Wars argument) sub-section. --Loremaster (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious. How does being the first person to have initiated an article on Wikipedia or to have provided significant content to the article result in your view being more valuable than someone else's? (User: Who cares?) 11 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Simple. I am the contributor most aware of all the disputes (with other contributors) that led to the consensus that produced the current content of the article. Also, I am the contributor most responsible for raising the quality of this article to not only get good article status but featured article status. --Loremaster (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be original research to do so. The book is unrelated and that criticism is already dealt with. You synthesize information to express a view. YVNP (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
On top of that, most transhumanists seem to be quite tolerant to people who do not wish to become hybrids/machines, unlike nazis, who would annihilate anyone who disagreed with them. The concepts are nowhere near the same. Zazaban (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
YVNP brings up a good point which is that this criticism is alreay expressed and responded to in the article. --Loremaster (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've cited the book as a source for a sentence in the Specter of coercive eugenicism (Eugenics Wars argument) sub-section. --Loremaster (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick Bostrom

I feel compelled to post a comment with regards to the description of Nick Bostrom as a philosopher. Yes, he claims to be one, yes Yale seems to think he is, but if you actually read his stuff it's just a collection of blind fanboi-ism. He's a sophist. These wikipedia articles sometimes take too much on face value. =\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be referenced then. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
If you feel that compelled, can you please tell us who and what you are in order to determine whether or not you are qualified to make such a judgement? --Loremaster (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Further Reading

I'm not sure if this was discussed before but a further reading section would be wonderful. -- (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

However wonderful they may be, I don't know whether Further reading sections are encouraged according to Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, there is plently of further reading to be found in the References section. --Loremaster (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


There is a link to this portal on several articles and yet it does not exist. And why not? It would be a fairly good thing to have. Zazaban (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we should create a Portal:Transhumanism page or create a See also section? If it is the former, nothing is preventing you from creating a stub. If it is the latter, I suggest you read the debate about this subject which you can find at the top of this page. --Loremaster (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I mean creating a Portal:Transhumanism. Zazaban (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, good ahead if you think you can do a good job. --Loremaster (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

ameliorate clause proposal

"and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as stupidity, suffering, disease, aging and involuntary death."

suggestion: "and ameliorate what people tend to regard as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as stupidity, suffering, disease, aging and involuntary death."

I feel like 'stupidity' could use some work; it doesn't really fit with the other three. Everyone suffers, ages, probably gets sick, and will die within, oh, 122 years as of current record and probably much earlier. Not everyone is stupid or feels stupid, and raising the general level of intelligence would be more of an enhancement. Since this clause is about 'ameliorating', perhaps change stupidity to something broader about congenital defects? One could also mention crippling wounds -- or perhaps neither defects nor acquired handicaps, putting both under suffering.

Still: "and ameliorate what people tend to regard as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as congenital defects, acquired handicaps, general suffering, disease, aging and involuntary death."

? -- Mindstalk (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the only issue with the current version is the choice of the word "stupidity". For an opening paragraph, it certainly can be interperted as an insult. "Lack of education" is the closest gist that I can think of, but that certainly doesn't roll off the tongue now does it.
I do however think that "what it regards" is the more proper verious. While I certainly don't want to word it at "this is good and that is bad", there is certainly a trend of marking which aspects of the human condition (general and individual) are hinderances (or in the individual sense even inconveniences). For example, I'm personally color blind and while I manage just fine I still put it as an inarguable hindarance. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
But wouldn't that in fact be an example of you regarding, rather than the transhumanism 'movement' regarding?
"ignorance" would be the shorthand for lack of education. -- Mindstalk (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Considering I'm running on pretty much just leftover caffiene in my system, I'll respond to the first part in the morning. As far as "ignorance" goes, that does certainly seem to work better. Not with intention of finding a more placating word, but simply one that doesn't have heavier insulting connotations. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Stupidity is the property a person, action or belief instantiates by virtue of having or being indicative of low intelligence or poor learning abilities. From a transhumanist perspective, the problem that needs to be addressed isn't "lack of education" or "ignorance" but "low intelligence". Therefore, regardless of how "politically incorrect" it sounds, "stupidity" is the right word. However, I am open to alternatives and I'll even look for one myself. --Loremaster (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)--Loremaster (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Common use of "stupid" often conflates ignorance and low intrinsic intelligence, so "low intelligence" might be better than "stupidity". But it's also a subset of congenital disabilities, and I think even more now that "congenital and acquired disabilities" deserves a place in that list. That would cover outright retardation or other commonly accepted mental disabilities, along with missing limbs or health problems, and as to whether low-normal intelligence is a 'disability', well, transhumanists advocate boosting intelligence for everyone, so it's a moot point. -- Mindstalk (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that transhumanists are far more interested in using nootropics to increase their intelligence (which one assumes is "average" or "normal" rather than "low") than cure "congentital and acquired mental disabilities". However, I've decided to replace the word "stupidity" with "disability". --Loremaster (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Loremaster, you 'get it' [my intention in my edits] when you say their intelligence; Mindstalk started off with pointing this out too, although mentions of political correctness popped up a few messages ago. Although it's good to remove insulting connotations, I am quite alright with knowing that I -- and others -- may in fact be generally clueless, so I want to bring focus back to what I was mentioning earlier. Instead, it's the "But wouldn't that in fact be an example of you regarding, rather than the transhumanism 'movement' regarding?" part that highlights the issues at hand. Just because there is a majority opinion among people who talk about the 'human condition' doesn't mean that transhumanist are necessarily interested in "eugenetical expeditions" to change the human population (yes, they may/may-not be interested in open access / open source technologies, but this isn't the same thing as Mandetory Nootropics). Thus my attempted word choice of 'users'. As mindstalk was saying, everyone suffers, ages, probably gets sick, and will die within, oh, 122 years as of current record and probably much earlier. Not everyone is stupid or feels stupid, and raising the general level of intelligence would be more of an enhancement. But it's not just an issue of feeling stupid -- it's being judged as stupid; who's the one doing the judging here? Certainly not the WTA. An alternative edit to suggest is replacing 'human condition' with 'personal condition' while still linking to the human condition article. What about that? -- kanzure (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Although I understand your point of view, the lead of this article is simply a rephrasing of the definition Nick Bostrom wrote for the WTA Transhumanist FAQ: "The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities." Regardless, when I say things like "it seems to me that transhumanist believe X", I am simply synthesizing everything I have read transhumanists say about themselves, their ideology and their movement. Anyway, the Lead of the article is fine as it is. I don't understand this preoccupation some of you have to edit it to reflect your personal POV. Let's focus on the History section instead. --Loremaster (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Oy, the history section, don't remind me. -_- --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you be willing to verbalize what it is that you think I am suggesting, Loremaster? You call it pPOV, so I'm just wondering where that personal bias of mine is supposedly seeping in. (And this way, I can see where you are so that I can write something that is perhaps more contributing than what we've tried in the past.) -- kanzure (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No. I would not be willing. That being said, I will replace the word "ameliorate" with "overcome". --Loremaster (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd put nootropics as envisioned mostly under enhancement (though in reality we might find that ameliorative ones are easier to develop.) I'd agree that transhumanists tend to be more interested in enhancement than amelioration, but the latter is there; part of it is that the desirability of the latter is taken for granted, and much less controversial (though not entirely uncontroversial.) But I think I'm satisfied with the lead for now. And yeah, I found the similarity to -- Mindstalk (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


I am here to discuss the edits User:Loremaster pulled earlier today. I'd like to cite [5] and the wta-talk archives on these specific edits. -- kanzure (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

We can discuss these edits once you have read the Wikipedia:No original research page. --Loremaster (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Though I am not about to suggest I didn't add refs, adding links to RepRap (wp: RepRap) and fabber, crnano, biohack, dnatube, etc., would have been trivial. These are already existing projects that deal directly with these topics, and excluding their relevance (as primary sources) is negligence. -- kanzure (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It's more the conclusions you come up with based on these sources that are problematic. --Loremaster (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm. I don't see what you mean. Take RepRap for instance -- the idea of the project is clearly (as in, written) to make a self-replicating machine (and barring the problems with the design; remember, no original research, right?) and falls under transhumanist technologies as defined by Ralph Merkle, Freitas (he even has a book out on this, re: KSRMs), Kurzweil, Drexler, Chris Phoenix, etc. These are the conclusions that previous authors have come up with, and their ideas are being neglected in the "socioeconomic" criticisms (not even their molecular nanotechnology ideas; just RepRap for starters) which I think is what you were mainly concerned about when doing the revert, yes? -- kanzure (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide quotes? --Loremaster (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Kanzure's additions could use work, but I think there's merit in them, and the undo of all that in only 4 minutes does seem hasty. -- Mindstalk (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The point of the "hasty undo" was to work on these additions here rather than on the article. --Loremaster (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Can you can say more about what you found problematic and why? A blanket "NOR" and "conclusions problematic" doesn't give much for Kanzure to respond to. -- Mindstalk (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
When someone writes a sentence like "herein referred to as type-1 transhumanism. Additionally, techno-humanism or type-2 transhumanism involves the amelioration of what governments regard as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition" one must immediately ask what is the source of this dubious information. --Loremaster (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
While the terminology might need some work, it is evident that there is a distinction to be made between transhumanism and techno-humanism. This is as clear as daylight by viewing the transhumanist organization websites, even those that are now defunct. And the alternative? "Transhumanism (sometimes symbolized by >H or H+), a term often used as a synonym for human enhancement, is an international, intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human mental and physical abilities and aptitudes, and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as stupidity, suffering, disease, aging and involuntary death." This amorphous "it" is ambiguous -- the transhumanism v. techno-humanism is an attempt at disambiguation. Do you have another way to resolve the ambiguity in this instance? -- kanzure (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You are still missing the point. What is the source for your statements? --Loremaster (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(deindenting, but in response to "the terminology might need some work"): Honestly, that's not so evident to me. I'm not as plugged into >H discussions as I used to be, but I was on the extropians list for years, and "techno-humanism" isn't something I recall encountering. And a web search turns up lots of hits, but rather amorphous ones. And why were governments part of the original edit? As for "type-1" and such, NOR probably includes no coining new terminology in WP. If there's a couple of unlabelled trends, the best a WP article can do is describe them, without coining new labels. -- Mindstalk (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. --Loremaster (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: sources. Two main sources. (1) The ambiguity that I mentioned in which "it" doesn't make any sense - how could an idea want to ameliorate stupidity/etc.? In other words, personally human enhancing technologies are different from those technologies that might be used for upgrading 'humanity' or whatever. (2) Observations of transhumanism out in the wild, such as ExI/WTA -- notice how ExI doesn't talk about social-democracy stuff (whatever that means; I'm just talking about the keyword appearance), while the WTA does. I am fine with describing them rather than coining new labels. Perhaps separating the politics from the fundamental baseline tech concepts within transhumanism would be the way to do this: i.e., technological possibilities, and then ways that various groups of people are thinking about implementing them (on their own through open source grassroots groups, through government programs to support radical enhancements or something, social democracies, etc.) I think I can cite websites for each of those types of scenarios, actually, and don't those have a place in the article? -- kanzure (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
First, it seems obvious to almost everyone except you that "it" refers not to the idea but to the movement which is comprised of transhumanist individuals and organizations. Second, we cannot give undue weight to minority opinions. --Loremaster (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's reasonable to call it a minority view (the human enhancement aspects, from an engineering perspective, ex: possibilities of brain implants as a modification). Confusing it with the idea of the movement and the various suggested ways (as suggested by transhumanists) of applying those technologies is unhelpful. I'll put some thought into a way to separate the two without doing undue damage to the integrity of the current article. -- kanzure (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me but you seem terribly confused. --Loremaster (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To Loremaster: I have studied the page history and think the edits done by Kanzure were quite reasonable. Of course you may be right that "It's more the conclusions you come up with based on these sources that are problematic" but I don't see how this conclusion may be reached in the 4 (yes, four) minutes that you took before completely undoing the edit. I wouldn't wish to think that your intention is to claim "ownership" of the page. This would be very much against Wikipedia OS, participatory policy. User:pgptag —Preceding comment was added at 12:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been informed that you are a "transhumanist guru" and therefore you cannot be impartial in this matter. --Loremaster (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
this matter? Because he's a guru he can't have an opinion on a talk page that questions the thoughougness of your 4 minute review before making edits? harsh. --Lemmey (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Giulio Prisco can give his opinion. However, I am simply stating that he may have a conflict of interest since he is a promoter of transhumanism. Furthermore, Kanzure's mostly unsourced edits were very minor so I fail to see how many minutes Wikipedia guidelines require me to wait before judging them to be poor and deserving debate before inclusion. --Loremaster (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no opinion on any violation of wikipedia guidelines you have made, and your promoter statement is noted. However since Giulos comment was on your actions and not the inclusion or exclusion of material to the article his promoter status is largely irrelevant. --Lemmey (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The relevance is that his judgment of my actions will be harsher than it normally would be because he may see me as an obstacle to the article being turned into a promotional tool for the WTA... --Loremaster (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Improving the History section

In light of possible recent historical events in transhumanist history as well as a better knowlegde of past, I'm open to suggestions on how to improve the History section of the Transhumanism article. So let's discuss additions or deletions here before editing the article. --Loremaster (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, how about you start with mentioning some of whatever is in your head to cause you to think of this to beguin with? I'm sure you have a couple points (short or broad) already in mind. After just a cursory glance (no backtracking or reference hunting), my immediate comment would be to perhaps trim down some of the wikilinks (3+ links in as many words, etc) or at least space them out a bit for ease of reading (and wiki-jumping) as well as inserting some more references. The very first sentance refers to an article by name but doesn't link to a relavent wiki or source information, for example. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I don't really have anything in mind. I've simply been informed that some transhumanists feel the entire article needs to be redone so that it portrays transhumanism in the best posssible light(!). This is unacceptable and I won't tolerate it during my watch. However, the History section is what they seem to have most issues with and I am willing to concede that it might need improvement. So I am open to discussing it. Anyway, feel free to make the changes you suggested. I'll tweak whatever you do if necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It is very easy to trace the history of transhumanists back 2000+ years. The same debates concerning imitating humans, improving humans (conquering Nature), creating an artificial human (artificial life and the homunculus) existed in ancient times (Aristotle and Lao Tzu, for example). Amara (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
True but this article is more about the transhumanist ideology and movement. --Loremaster (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It was said that this article needed more History. True or not? Amara (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes but not original research. --Loremaster (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
IF there was an 'ideology' for transhumans with a clear and defineable beginning, then your statement would be a true statement. However, since there is not a transhuman 'ideology' with a clear beginning, then this History section is missing a few thousand years of valuable information, and I consider it (today was the first time I read this article ... how disappointing in its lack of information!) not a very useful article. Amara (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you confusing "transhuman" (an evolutionary transition from the human to the posthuman) with "transhumanist" (an adherent to the transhumanist ideology or a member of the transhumanist movement)? --Loremaster (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No. (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
My point is that no one is talking about an "ideology for transhumans" or a "transhuman ideology". We are writing about the transhumanist ideology in this article. However, feel free to expand the Transhuman article if you wish. --Loremaster (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Last answer by me, obviously. I'll leave this muddy mess of an article for all of you now. Looking at the long history of heavy-handed non-neutral POV edits, it's clear that changes and updates for accuracy are not permitted by the owner of this article. I suggest to everyone else to not waste their time. Amara (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Although I don't care whether you stay or leave, I suggest you read Talk:Transhumanism#IMPORTANT: Friendly advice for new contributors before spewing such poisonous rants in the atmosphere. --Loremaster (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Amara. -- The article already has bits of pre-20th century roots, in the links to the Renaissance and Enlightenment. If someone who feels they know more about that, or deeper roots of transhumanist ideas, wants to write something about those and add it, I think that'd be fine, particularly if with references and no overweening claims. But existing WP authors aren't necessarily going to do that kind of research. -- Mindstalk (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
One can simply expand the introductory paragraph of the History section using the Nick Bostrom essay which is it's source. --Loremaster (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

6 May 2008 edits

Petebertine: sincere edit, yes, but I've have reverted the edit if Human.v2.0 hadn't already. Speaking as a transhumanist, your edit seemed too... favorably biased? Too much of a positive spin? Too narrow a definition? Something of all of those. "improving the species as a whole", "regardless of race sex or class", especially "people who embrace are rational and compassionate" -- that one was really egregious. Sure, some are, some aren't one or the other, some aren't either; nothing about human enhancement requires compassion. *Or* a whole-species focus, in fact that would go against the liberal or libertarian individualism common in transhumanist circles, and sounds kind of eugenicist in the old and usual sense. Everyone having the freedom to enhance (or more neutrally, alter) themselves and their children, with or without public support or regulation, would be more like it. -- Mindstalk (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My motivations were that (it was certainly not written witha neutral POV in mind) and also the fact that the edit was admittedly done as a "response" to some unknown discussion. Now, if the motivations for this edit could be expanded it might be different. Perhaps there is some hidden reasoning for the rewording. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
First, I would like to say that Human.v2.0 is doing great job watching over the neutrality of this article despite the fact that he is a transhumanist. Second, I agree with him that people, regardless of whether or not they have a "transhumanist bias", should discuss changes to the Transhumanism article on this talk page to avoid a dispute and to reach a consensus rather than conspiring about how to "improve" this article on the wta-talk list or in private email conversations. --Loremaster (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Entirely off-topic, but since this article has been in my watchlist I've decided that I should never go to a function that is hosting Natasha Vita-Moore. The likelyhood of my getting a verbal or literal slap is just a few percentage points too high for me, all things considered.
I do not personally subscribe to any WTA blogs or forums, so I couldn't say that this came from any of those sources. I'd also be hopeful that any of the names mentioned would know better, so I'm at a loss as to what the background for the edit was. Hopefully some light will be shed. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I just joined wta-talk, and checked my extropy-chat mbox. wta has a bit of discussion about the WP article, more like griping than conspiring on how to re-write it, IMO. Natasha thought the reference to ameliorating stupidity was a low blow, imputing a value judgement to transhumanism... I think Kanzure had a valid point recently that the enhancements and ameliorations are generally meant to be user-defined, not according to some movement program. Some debate on things like having deaf children. -- Mindstalk (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Although I was being facetious when I used the word "conspire", Kanzure seems like an eccentric (to be polite) whose edits damage the article rather than improve it. --Loremaster (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Ad hominem? -- (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC) -- kanzure (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You are free to misinterpret my comments as you wish, oh anonymous one. --Loremaster (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I was not intending to be anonymous (so I've gone up and claimed it). Your reasoning above suggests: "this person is eccentric, therefore his edits are damaging and unwelcome." What type of reasoning is that? -- kanzure (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that they key phrase there was "(to be polite)", meaning to avoid using different terminology so as to not have to resort to any overt attacks on character. Regardless, I am the one that actually changed it due to it being a nonsensical edit that did not enhance or clarify anything (and in fact leaned towards doing the opposite) and the stated motivations for which can be interperted as anything from "we at WTA worked on this rewrite together" to "I changed this so as to make a point to individuals I was talking to elsewhere." Instead of the edit being unwelcome due to eccentricity, I wouls say that the individual is viewed by at least myself to be eccentric due to harmful edits. Now, is terminology something that we need to continue to discuss? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral POV?

More than half of this article is devoted to controversies surrounding Transhumanism. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to give a neutral POV? A simple mass balance of the text here demonstrates that a neutral POV has failed.Amara (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Transhumanism is a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article, which has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. One of the things that contributed to this identification was the Controversy section, whose content and size has been extensively debated in the past before a consensus was reached. This section is neutral because for every arguments against transhumanism there is a transhumanist counter-argument, which provides the opportunity to expand on what transhumanists beleive. In fact, some critics have argued (incorrectly) that all these transhumanist counter-arguments make the article seem like a PR tool of the WTA... --Loremaster (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I will accept such a statement when I see supporting facts (references please) and hopefully by someone who has a neutral POV. Such statements by someone who has obviously written this Wikipedia entry with his/her own POV is not very convincing.Amara (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you obviously have a strong transhumanist POV (based on your previous comments on this talk page), I find your statement so laughable that I won't even ask what you think my POV is since I've been criticized by bioconservatives for having a transhumanist bias and by transhumanists for having an "anti-transhumanist" bias. --Loremaster (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been informed that Loremaster is anti-transhumanist Justice De Thezier and therefore cannot be impartial in these matters. Until Loremaster reveals his true identity to be someone other than Mr. De Thezier, Loremaster's neutrality should be viewed as the work of an outspoken anti-transhumanist critic. Deviceminder (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(laughter) I'm not Justice De Thezier but I believe I have said in the past that I have worked with him when he was a transhumanist as well as User:Metamagician3000 (who is transhumanist sympathizer Russell Blackford) and User:StN (whom Blackford has suggested may or may not be bioconservative Stuart Newman) to make sure Transhumanism became a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article, which has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. In the course of writing this article, I've been criticized by bioconservatives for having a transhumanist bias and by transhumanists for having an "anti-transhumanist" bias. Anyone who believes I haven't been neutral (during all my years editing and watching over this article) is so blinded by their own bias that that can't see straight. By the way, "Deviceminder", if you are such a hypocrite that you don't have the courage or integrity to use your real name when making such a personal attack, why should I?!? Regardless, Wikipedia doesn't require contributors to use their real names. --Loremaster (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You have insisted twice now that certain editors are biased due to their personal views on transhumanism and so their input can be disregarded. If you are Mr. De Thezier, by your own standards you are also biased due to your personal feelings on transhumanism and so your input can be disregarded. Am I to understand that you are denying you are the critic of transhumanism Justice De Thezier? Deviceminder (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not him but I freely admit to have extensively worked with him when he was a transhumanist. (I hope you are not operating under the misguided notion that eventually finding and outing my real name here is going to intimidate me into bending over and letting agents of the WTA have their way with the Transhumanism article...) Regardless, since we are not posthuman but still human, we all have biases but we should strive to overcome them in every aspect of our lives but especially when contributing to Wikipedia. The history of edits to the Transhumanism article and archived discussions of its talk page show that I have collaborated with people with different views than mine who were at both "extremes" (some were transhumanists while the others were bioconservatives) to write what the Wikipedia community has judged to be a neutral article after going through a peer review, good article and featured article vetting process. I only pointed out that Giulio Prisco's judgment of my actions might be influenced by the fact that he may see me as an obstacle to the article being turned into a promotional tool for the WTA while Amara has nerves questioning my POV when she has demonstrated a strong transhumanist POV on this page. My point? Even if I was the "big bad anti-transhumanist" you think I am (which I am not), I have not let my alleged "anti-transhumanist" POV influence my editing of this article. The bruises from the fights I've had with bioconservative User:StN (which can be found in the archives) should be proof enough. --Loremaster (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you seem to think everyone must first acknowledge the quality of the article before editing it. Nowhere in the Wikipedia guidelines do I see that featured article status applies a doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere. This article is not perfect, and people who have spent decades thinking about this topic might have something of real substance to add. Oh, and nice try with the whole posthumans and bias thing. You're not really fooling anyone.Deviceminder (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone must acknowledge anything about this article. I'm reminding people of the history of this article (which their comments seem to suggest they are not aware of: Transhumanism, although not perfect, is (or was...) a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article; which 1) has gone through a peer review, good article and featured article vetting process to ensure its neutral point of view; 2) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community; and 3) has elements that were produced by extensive collaboration between people of conflicting views before reaching consensus. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do. But the only thing I suggest is that all claims for and against transhumanism, or otherwise, be accurate, properly attributed, and well-referenced. Is that too much to ask? No. As for "fooling people", please demonstrate that my bias has undermined the neutrality of the content of this article. --Loremaster (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

However, if Loremaster is prepared to: 1) start assuming good faith on the part of all editors; 2) refrain from divulging personal details of said editors in accordance with Wikipedia talk page guidelines, and 3) avoid claiming express or implied ownership of the transhumanism article, then we all should be willing to do the same, no matter what true name Loremaster goes by. Deviceminder (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Deviceminder", 1) I assume good faith unless my good faith is questioned which it has been repeatedly; 2) I've only "divulged" personal details on one editor when this person made it obvious who they were (through their choice of username) and when I thought such information was important to understand the nature of a specific dispute, and 3) I have never claimed express or implied ownership of the Transhumanism article. I have claimed an interest in this article that I maintain on my watchlist. I have also claimed an interest in this article remaining well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable while knowing that it can and should be boldly updated or improved by contributors other than myself. Regardless, please keep in mind that the majority of reverts or edit wars in recent days or weeks have come not from me but from transhumanist User:Human.v2.0. --Loremaster (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I... I are a sneaky chameleon? No, no, seriously now. I had been wondering if/how I was going to comment on this section, and I guess I've almost quite literally been granted an introduction. The controversy/criticism section of Transhumanism is (by my scroll bar) just a hair over 50% of the wiki's mass, which can be slightly misleading until you take note that a good number of these arguments are valid points that are brought up with within the transhumanist community itself as well as by outside sources ranging from researchers to critics. I'm quite sure that my own comments about this section are archived on here somewhere, but what it all boils down to is that this section brings up important topics and covers them nicely. I'm sure there are some sections that could use a little expanding here or there, but that goes without saying when you are dealing with an article of this size (not to mention controversy). --Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well said! I don't understand why transhumanists who are critical of this article can't see that. The Controversy section was created and mostly written by transhumanists! --Loremaster (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
One objection I've seen is that not that Controversy is too long but the prior sections too superficial, not going enough into Theory and especially Practices, or that the mention of uploading is immediately followed by criticism. Of course, uploading does have its own page, but I think there'd be room for expanding those without being biased. -- Mindstalk (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The objections to the length of the Controversy section can be found in the archives. I agree that the sections you pointed to are relatively superficial so feel free to expand any section (other than the Controversy section) with sourced content that is not original research. --Loremaster (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
So, it's not the article you claim ownership of, it's the Controversy section. This does make some sense, from where I sit. Though, English is your second language, so I might have missed the intent of your comment. Deviceminder (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No. My point is that everyone agrees that the Controversy section is long enough. By the way, "Deviceminder", do you have a real name or should I start an investigation to out it here? --Loremaster (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and 'intelligentsia' struck *me* as provocative. But, um, regarding this morning's edits, it seems perverse to delete historical information right when the depth of the article has been challenged. If that first paragraph in History is coherently all about Bostrom's essay (not clear to me, given Wikipedia editing) then couldn't information not in the essay simply be moved, rather than deleted? -- Mindstalk (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Provocative? The term "intelligentsia" is quite flattering in light of the fact that many of the people that are being referred to under this umbrella term have been called crackpots... Anyway, this morning's edits were perfectly legitimate since I was deleting information from the History section that was not based on Nick Bostrom's article. However, I now agree that the content which has a source should be restored. I'll simply had one more citation of the Bostrom essay to clarify things. --Loremaster (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I see that term "intelligentsia" has been edited out of the Lead section of the article. That's fine with me. --Loremaster (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

About the edits from experts

Upon looking over this discussion page, there appear to be instances where experts wished to make changes, and they were not allowed because such were considered 'biased'. As a Wikipedia writer of a number of science articles for which I can claim an expertise, this is the first time I've encountered an article where such expertise is a factor for disqualifying a Wikipedia editor's contribution. Amara (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Experts"? Who are these "experts"? My accusations of bias were against Prisco who didn't make any changes but simply intervened in a dispute I was having with someone else (whose edits others have agreed were quite idiosyncratic); and Amara after she questioned my honesty and attacked me for having a POV. Anyway, "expertise" is welcomed here but failure to be polite, refusal to assume good faith, resorting to personal attacks are not and neither is an agenda to rewrite this article to portray transhumanism only in the best possible light. By the way, didn't Amara say she was leaving? Did she forget something? --Loremaster (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Is immediate reversions "good faith" ? Just wondering. -- kanzure (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Assuming good faith simply means that I have to work from an assumption that you are trying to help the project, not hurt it. However, I undid your edits when I quickly realized that you were in fact hurting the article and politely suggested that we talk about your edits on this talk page to avoid a dispute or edit war. --Loremaster (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Important: History -- First paragraphs ought to acknowledge Max More

One way in which we could make this article better would be to quote Max More immediately in the "History" section. The reson for my suggesting this important edit is that the assumption readers have when reading this section is that Nick Bostrom is the creator of transhumanism. This misinterpretation could affect the viability of Nick Bostrom's many important contributions to transhumanism. However, as I stated, this does not include creating the movement. My suggestion is to quote Max More in this first paragraph since he is the philosopher who actually did create the movement of transhumanism.

I am using my real-time name because of the many complaints about this article being written by individuals with a political agenda and accusations that such editors are preventing others from making changes to this article. Natasha Vita-More (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that your relationship with Max More gives you a personal agenda and therefore puts you in a conflict of interest according to Wikipedia guidelines, you are the only person who has ever voiced such a silly misinterpretation. Please ask User:Metamagician3000/Russell Blackford, the transhumanist who wrote that paragraph, whether or not he thinks your criticism is valid. Since this article was written by people with conflicting views, "political agendas" have nothing to do with the reason why some editors (most of whom are transhumanists) are preventing others (all of whom are transhumanists) from making changes. The only issue is whether or not all claims for and against transhumanism, or otherwise, are accurate, properly attributed, and well-referenced. The importance of Max More is documented in the History section. People are free to expand the paragraph in which he is mentioned. --Loremaster (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The idea that there is any "confusion" there is more than silly. To be perfectly frank, I'm having a hard time deciding between vaguely disgusted surprise and full-out laughing, especially when your own contributions history shows that you [Natasha Vita-More] are completely incapable of maintaining an unbiased stance (or even a stance that isn't based on blatant self-promotion). --Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Be careful Human.v2.O otherwise you will be (falsely) accused of having a "political agenda". ;) --Loremaster (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ugh... stupid conflicting edits, stupid me not remembering to copy response before clicking "save page"...
I'm aware of the possibility of being labeled as biased or the like, untrue as such claims would be. For the record I had actually never heard of NVM (After a brief internal struggle with variations of Miss, Mrs, and the like, I'll just go with the simple initials. No offense intended, should it be wondered) before Wiki, and for that matter in non-wiki-related browsing (ie: sources that are not cited in Wiki articles) since then. I have no bias beyond the artistic saying of "everyone's a critic", and my own interpretations and preferences in art have no basis her (or in the non-digital world, for that matter). --Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
NVM is a pioneer of the transhumanist movement and the Wikipedia article on Transhumanism acknowledges this fact. However, from my interactions with her over the years, which have only occured on this talk page, I've gotten the impression that she is far more interested in this article reflecting how important she thinks she and her husband Max More were to the formation of the transhumanist movement than necessarily caring about whether or not this article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable or, more importantly, respects all Wikipedia guidelines. But I still have to assume good faith... --Loremaster (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree on all three points, as well as my self-acknowledged slightly more jaded view that can be noticed in the wording of some of my Discussion page comments. Unable to avoid the pun, I'll have to admit that I'm still only human. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Loremaster, what about Extro Conferences from the 80s, the many magazines, the philosophical formulations, etc. that significantly predate Bostrom's take on transhumanism? Is this bias too? I am confused. -- kanzure (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The section doesn't state (nor, I think, imply) that Bostrom founded transhumanism; it says he wrote an online essay on the history, which the article can thus quote in detail. Max More is mentioned in chronological order, as laying the foundation of modern transhumanism. -- Mindstalk (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. --Loremaster (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
People should feel free to expand the paragraph where Max More is mentioned to include more information about "Extro Conferences from the 80s, the many magazines, the philosophical formulations, etc". However, it should be concise since such information can and should be in the Max More and Extropianism articles. --Loremaster (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the article to include more information about Max More and the Extropy Institute. I hope everyone (including NVM) is happy but I'm not holding my breath...  ;) --Loremaster (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why the change of Bostrom from transhumanist to analytic philosopher? -- Mindstalk (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

To be more precise and less redundant. --Loremaster (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I am more concerned over your resistance to my suggestions (which read as if they are based on your personal views) than your comments about me personally (which are unprofessional). Natasha Vita-More (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well for starters, I myself am not a professional. I am no more than a regular person whom uses Wiki. Speaking personally, my only view of you that matters is the view that is formed by your actions here. This view is not; to put into so many words; terribly flattering of yourself. Your personal actions on Wikipedia have made you look like a self-promoting two-bit performer mixed with a snake-oil salesman. This view is not a factor of your own legitimate mentions in related articles, nor does it effect that in reverse. It simply requires me to take your statements and actions with a grain of salt, though that salt is also swallowed with the above-mentioned "good faith".
Your own claims would show much more validity if you gave some sort of explanation as to why you thought that the original wording could be confusing. Coming into the talk page and saying "I am Natasha Vita-More, people are somehow confused by this clear wording, and to fix that you should quote Max More" is not terribly helpful to anyone; not helpful to the actions of individuals who read and use this Wiki and not helpful to your own questionable benevolence in regard to this article.
I would personally be very welcome to hear legitimate suggestions, and am allways overjoyed when the suggestion is combined with some summary of reasoning to go along with it. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with everything Human.v2.O said. However, after thinking it over, I've come to conclusion that there might some merit in part of NVM's criticisms/suggestions despite the self-promotion/conflict-of-interest issue: Although Max More will continue to only be mentioned in the seventh paragraph of the History section, I've decided to remove the explicit mention of Nick Bostrom in the first paragraph to avoid any misinterpretation about his role and importance in relations to transhumanism. I hope this puts to rest false accusations of "ownership", "POV", "bias" or "political agenda" but one can only dream... --Loremaster (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I asked Bostrom, and he replied that he felt "analytic philosopher" was a more accurate description of him. As for that first paragraph of the History section, it is entirely ripped from his essay; changing Bostrom to "some philosophers" seems weaselly. But that's my first reaction. -- Mindstalk (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Mindstalk, please be mindful of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest behavioral guideline. It doesn't matter what Nick Bostrom feels is more accurate. As contributors to an encyclopedic article, we must report facts not personal preferences. As for changing Bostrom to "some philosophers", it's a majestic plural. The idea is that Bostrom speaks for some philosophers who have studied and written about transhumanist thought. --Loremaster (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fringe Science

Does transhumanism even qualify as a science? It's more of a philosophy. This label would then be incorrect. Zazaban (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. Fringe science is mentioned several times in the article. Could you better explain what you mean/want? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
PS: After a quick check, this article is even noted with the "Fringe Science" catagory already. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Aubrey de Grey is mentioned in the fringe science article. ~~ N (t/c) 02:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Um... random trivia time? Or am I missing something here still?--Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Aubrey de Grey, transhumanist, SENS guy. I think the characterization is fair. ~~ N (t/c) 02:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Zazaban, a topic doesn't need to be a science to be in the Science category so the Transhumanism article is in the Fringe Science category not because it is a fringe science itself but because many transhumanist proposals (such as Aubrey de Grey's SENS) rely on fringe science. Transhumanists should be happy with this categorization because many critics have argued that a better category would be pseudoscience. I hope I don't need to remind anyone that this encyclopedic article is about reporting facts not presenting transhumanism in the best possible light in order to recruit more transhumanists... --Loremaster (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I simply thought that since this may not qualify as a science, it may not qualify to be in that category. Zazaban (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this a formulation of what you mean: "transhumanism/transhumans use science, they aren't science themselves." ? -- kanzure (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. He thought wrong. --Loremaster (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fiction and Art: Split?

Considering that we already have a link to the seperate Transhumanism in Fiction entry, do we need to have these two middle paragraphs that are just links/dates of several dozen various examples? Specifically:

This sentence is just a trainwreck: "In addition to the work of Natasha Vita-More, mentioned earlier, and the Transhumanist Arts & Culture center she curates, transhumanist themes appear in the visual and performing arts."
At the very least I'd propose changing it to: "In addition to the work of Natasha Vita-More (curator of the Transhumanist Arts & Culture center) transhumanist themes appear in the visual and performing arts."

Also, I'd be wary of referencing Michael Jackson as an example of transhumanism in music. Jackson has publicly stated that he suffers from vitiligo, and I think that the wording of this section is just downright wrong. At any rate, I'm currently at a loss for a way to tidy this section up. Realistically I feel that it would be best to split this into a Fiction and an Art section; there is a large amount of valid examples of transhumanism in fiction, as well as a good portion of transhumanism in art (both self-described and labeled), I just feel that this section is suffering from trying to work them in together. I guess that's all I can think to say right now. --Human.v2.0 18:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I think the number of examples should be reduced, I think a few are necessary since some people may never bother to read the Transhumanism in fiction article. As for the problematic sentence you pointed out, I've replaced it with the one you suggested. Regarding the Michael Jackson reference, I suggest you read the archived discussion that settled that issue. That being said, I would be opposed to splitting the Fiction and Art section into two since works of fiction are considered a form of art. A better idea is simply to change the title of this section to Arts and Culture. --Loremaster 21:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do think that it's important to list some examples, but I'm still trying to think of a better way to format it. As things stand now, there are two paragraphs there that are largely hyperlinks, which is something I personally should be avoided for various resons. As for Michael Jackson, I think that there is a large gap between an artist that has a treated medical condition and an artist who is a transhumanist. I would think that in common definition, a "transhumanist artist" is someone who's art is somehow influenced my transhumanism. By this current definition, where does the line stop? Is a muscician with a prosthetic leg a transhumanist artist? On that note, I can think of a small handful of muscicians that have prosthetics that do directly influence thier art. I think that the point I'm trying to make is that Michael Jackson may be an individual that can have transhuman characteristicsto himself, but neither he nor his music/art is transhumanist. --Human.v2.0 23:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
You seem confused. The article doesn't say that Micheal Jackson was a transhumanist artist but that he is an example of transhumanist themes appearing in the visual and performing arts. There is a difference. --Loremaster 00:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
"The American performer Michael Jackson used technologies such as plastic surgery, skin-lightening drugs and hyperbaric oxygen therapy over the course of his career, with the effect of transforming his artistic persona so as to blur identifiers of gender, race and age."
To me, that is worded in a way that seems to lean towards these treatments and effects were done to incorporate a blurring of gender, race and age into his art. And since as far as I can see his ownly effects to that matter are his nasal surgeries (which were indeed intended to alter the sound of his voice) and the song "Black or White", it seems to be a misleading example to be found in the Art section; ie, his art is not secifically relevant, only his appearance as an individual, so it seems like a poor spot for the reference. If the intent of the reference is to point out a celebrity of the arts-field that has been publicly noted for an artifically created "odd" appearance, I can think of a few facelift queens. In the end, his mention there is something that is acceptable to leave, though I do question direct relevance to that section of the article.
On an only quasi-related note, that quote also mentions "hyperbaric oxygen therapy" allong with the other two. I'm curious if there's a reason I'm unaware of for this, other than for healing purposes such as after plastic surgery. --Human.v2.0 00:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Have you read this article which is used a reference for the sentence about Michael Jackson? --Loremaster 17:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
We should have a small section summarizing important ideas of the main external article, much like the rest of wikipedia articles have. --Procrastinating@talk2me 15:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Although the external article may not be of good article quality so one wonders if we should improve it before summarizing it here. --Loremaster 17:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't male enhancement discussed?

Male enhancement is a bona fide example of biotechnology and body modification to go beyond the human condition. A good article on this subject would mention it as a step towards transhumanism. (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(laughter) Do you have any reliable sources that explicitly describe "male enhancement" as an important example of a transhumanist use of biotechnology? ;) --Loremaster (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Easy, here are three sources: [6] [7] [8] Hope this helps improve the article. Its relevance to transhumanism should be clear to anyone intimately familiar with transhumanist men. (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
[2] is a fictional novel, [3] and [4] are blogs. Not really reliable sources in my opinion! Nk.sheridan   Talk 12:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually [3] is a discussion on the gametrailers message board, even less reliable than a blog. 18:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Those are not reliable sources. However, even if there were reliable sources, there is no need to emphasize "male enhancement" as a good example of a transhumanist use of biotechnology in a way that is out of proportion to its importance. --Loremaster (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I would take this suggestion more seriously if it came from a registered user rather than an anyonymous one... --Loremaster (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Transplanted discussion

From the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Order of Cosmic Engineers page:

The notion that my treatment of transhumanism is "unpleasant" is ridiculous when several bioconversatives are on a record as accusing the Transhumanism article of being a promotional tool of the WTA! The article must and does reflect the fact that the idea of transhumanism is unpleasant to many people otherwise it would be nothing more than an ad for how great the idea of transhumanism is to you and your fellow transhumanists. As for what you describe as "the most repugnant element" which is "utterly disgusting" in the Transhumanism article, I am responsible for that picture being there. However, perhaps because of the pro-transhumanist bias which clouds your judgement, you failed to grasp that Australian artist Patricia Piccinini's concept of what human-animal hybrids might look like are provocative creatures which are part of a sculpture entitled "The Young Family," produced to address the reality of such possible parahumans in a compassionate way. You can read her own words on the subject's on the picture's Wikipedia page. --Loremaster (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The posthuman, singularity, nanotechnology, AI future has really unnerving aspects about it. I frankly doubt there will be a physical state human left by the end of this century. I have written about this for years, including a web published story where AIs effectively exterminate the population of an entire continent. In my opinion this is an impossible to avoid consequence of advancing technology. The words ugly, silly, and shallow come to mind before unfair. Re "obsessed", I don't think the wikipedia benefits from obsessed people, at least not now. But I don't know how that could be fixed where people can use as many logins as they wish. Keith Henson (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The fact that you have written extensively on transhumanism and related subjects (from an arguably extremist perspective...) only demonstrates that you have a bias in how you would like the Transhumanism article to be written. But if you read the last argument of its Controversy section, the apocalyptic concerns you expressed are summarized there. As Russell Blackford argued when we collaborated to edit the Controversy section, it would become redundant to go and on about all the possible apocalyptic scenarios that emerging tehnologies might produce. If the end result is that you judge the article as "ugly, silly, and shallow" so be it. But I call it being at once full in scope and brief and concise in treatment. Regarding obsessions, I didn't say I was "obsessive". I simply said you perceive me to be obsessive. I'm simply interested in a subject which I confess to having a sympathy for and have the luxury of being able to spend some of my time editing Wikipedia articles on it. However, I am a perfectionist so that's the actual reason why I have made so many edits. [...]. --Loremaster (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Although I have been called an ur- or proto-transhumanist, I don't think I have written directly about the topic. Of course, I have written about many of the complex of memes adopted by the transhumanists, most of them long before the word came into common use. I also don't think you can make a much of a case I want to write this article. Out of the last 1500 edits I made one and that was to delete unsupported nonsense on a topic where I am (unfortunately) an expert.
I don't think you can even make much of a case for me being pro transhumanist groups. I am not a member of any of them. Those who make a big deal out of being transhumanists usually lack EP based insight and are blind to their stone age motivations. They also tend to be long on philosophy and short on engineering skills in an era where we live or die on such skills.
As a group they have taken a story that was intended to be between ambiguous and a tragedy as a triumph.
I just read the end sections of the article and I am not impressed. The fact that wiki culture promoted this material into a featured article is an indictment of Wikipedia more than anything else. Keith Henson (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you are not a transhumanist nor "pro-transhumanist groups", I don't understand the vehemence with which you have attacked me for the work I've done on transhumanism-related articles, nor do I understand your criticism of the inclusion of material that makes the idea of transhumanism seem unpleasant to many people if you claim to find some members of the transhumanist movement naive or the technologies they are interested in potentially apocalyptic... That being said, I fully expected that you would not be impressed by the end sections of the article in light of your intense interest in the subject. However, you have failed to explain why you think its unimpressive or why the Wikipedia article on Transhumanism should not have been featured. Regardless of who you think I am, let me remind you that this article was first written by transhumanist George Dvorsky and over time it was expanded and improved through a collaborative effort between many other transhumanists, a few bioconservatives, and myself (please read this message from an earlier editor). Although I may be the person who made the most edits to this article, the vast majority of my edits consisted of tweaking text that was written by other people. The irony is that, if it wasn't for my constant watch, this article would be have been completely rewritten by these bioconservatives into a piece of anti-transhumanist propaganda far worse than the current version of this article that displeases so many transhumanists now... Read this archived discussion if you don't believe me. --Loremaster (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not attacking you so much as the work you have done. I find your idea of "improved" to be more like "written to discourage reading."

To put numbers on it, I ran a big chunk of the article through Word. Ignoring the other problems it found, the article had 14% passive sentences, an incredible Flesch Reading Ease of _9_ and a grade level of 12 (that's as high as it goes)

"Avoid Passive Sentences when possible. "

Flesch Reading Ease score

"Rates text on a 100-point scale; the higher the score, the easier it is to understand the document. For most standard documents, aim for a score of approximately 60 to 70."

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score

"Rates text on a U.S. grade-school level. For example, a score of 8.0 means that an eighth grader can understand the document. For most standard documents, aim for a score of approximately 7.0 to 8.0."

The metrics on "the clinic seed" are 11% passive, (high for me) 65.8 reading ease and grade level of 8.3.

And this is before I go looking at the content!

Readability is part of the reason would rather have transhumanists fighting it out with bioconservatives (is that a real word?) than having the article under your control.

I paged back in the article history to 2001 and George Dvorsky (who I know and lives in Toronto) is not likely to be user:sjc who lives in the UK and Scandinavia. I frankly think his one page version is a more useful article than the monster you created. As for it being a featured article, I am *not* impressed.

My above section, 0% passive, reading ease 63.7, grade 7.9

Your previous section, 57% passive, reading ease 24.4, grade 12.

Keith Henson (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the Wikipedia article on Transhumanism was judged to be well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, and neutral by the Wikipedia community as well as the fact that I have noticed many transhumanists and independent journalists quote some paragraphs of this article in their own presentations and writings, you will forgive me for not taking seriously your criticism that this article was "written to discourage reading." I'm not an advanced technical writer. The majority of Wikipedia contributors are not either nor should they be. Although I can't deny using a lot of passive sentences, the majority of sentences in the article (which you are free to edit) were written by other contributors and "readability" has never been an issue before you raised it. The major dispute has always been transhumanists feeling that the article is biased against transhumanism and bioconservatives feeling that is biased for transhumanism. The version of the article written by Dvorsky was arguably a puff piece that would never have been classified as a good article let alone a featured article by the Wikipedia community. As I said before, I didn't create this "monster". I mostly tweaked sentences, move paragraphs around, made sure the balance of pros and cons was preserved, and found reliables sources. Also keep in mind that the current version of the article is a compromise for me as well. There are many things I would add or delete if I truly had sole "control". If the article hadn't been under my watch, "anti-transhumanists" would have won the fight because they were far more dedicated, educated and informed while most transhumanist contributors were simply interested in making sure their pet pipe dream was mentioned in the article and that any criticism of transhumanism was eliminated. I have to say I am surprised that you don't know that "bioconservative" is a real word since it is used ad nauseum in transhumanist discourse (there is a paragraph dedicated to the subject in the Techno-progressivism article). That being said, no one cares that you are not impressed by this article or that you resent my "control" over it. I will continue to watch over transhumanism-related articles and collaborate with anyone of good faith to improve them for the foreseeable future. Nothing you have said so far will change that so I politely suggest to stop wasting your time. --Loremaster (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I should add that a solid block of text such as you have done above contributes to it being hard to read over and above its low reading ease score. Try adding some white space.
"In light of the fact that the Wikipedia article on Transhumanism was judged to be well-written," with a reading ease score of _9_ is an indictment of wiki culture. No professional editor would pass an article for general consumption that is that convoluted in sentence structure. Such a low a score puts it into the nearly unreadable class.
The way an article gets "featured status" is by mutually supporting social groups in Wikepedia voting up articles, not on objective merit of the articles--at least not on the quality of the writing.
There are well-written Wikipedia articles, but this is not one of them, regardless of what wiki-wonks say.
Re "bioconservative," this dictionary does not have it.
We have a factual issue re Dvorsky. Can you put up the URL for his first version of the article? From the history page, the first entity back in 2001 does not seem to be his.
You edited your reply to my previous comment 7 times over 5 hours. That's an amazing waste of your time. I certainly don't spend that much time on a reply. Keith Henson (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you also argue "transhumanist" was not a real word before the Oxford English Dictionary added it in December 2008? Regardless of your answer, since I don't really care about anything you have to say at this point, are we done, Keith? --Loremaster (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You have claimed twice that Dvorsky wrote the original article.
Back it up (you might be right) or admit you misremembered. Keith Henson (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't misremember. I mispoke. What I meant to say was that Dvorsky wrote the most substantive early version of the Transhumanism article on which every other contributor (who were mostly transhumanist militants or sympathizers) built upon. Regardless of how "useful" or "readable" or "free of passive sentences" that version was, it was neither comprehensive nor neutral and lacked citations so it would never have been judged a good article or nominated to become a featured article since it obviously fails to meet several of Wikipedia's standards on such things. However, my point wasn't to criticize Dvorsky or his version of the article but rather to simply emphasize that the Wikipedia article on Transhumanism was mostly a transhumanist PR tool until a few bioconservatives took interest in it and wanted to re-write it to become an "anti-transhumanist" propaganda tool. Thanks to my smart editing and vigilant watch (which some people have applauded) I was able to make sure the article remained relatively neutral despite the fact that many of your transhumanist friends will always wish that it made transhumanism seem like the "world's greatest idea". I have nothing more to say on the subject (especially not to someone with your attitude...). You are free and even welcomed to edit the article to transform passive sentences into active sentences if you are interested. However, if you decide to radically change the article, I suggest you read the friendly advice for new contributors section at the top of this page as well as the closed debate about the proposed splitting of Transhumanism's Controversy section into a new article before provoking a needless dispute. --Loremaster (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not going to work on the article only to have you revert it to an unreadable version. I don't really care what you do with the content though. I will work on it to make it more readable if you will agree that your subsequent edits don't make it score worse on the readability metrics as measured by Word. Deal? Keith Henson (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Deal. However, there are some sentences whose wording is crucial so I reserve the right to edit your edits to make sure that some meaning is not lost. --Loremaster (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
That's part of the deal. Edit as you please, just run your edits through Word's checker to be sure you don't make it less readable. The main reason the article scores so poorly is the long sentences. Shorter sentences are harder to write, but you can do it. Keith Henson (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
OK. Well, stop being sarcastic and get to work then. ;| --Loremaster (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to help Loremaster by working on this article. I've already started on a couple of sections. --TomAdmirer —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC).

The problem with Loremaster's version is that IMHO he is not English mother tongue, and in addition obviously feels too much about the subject. I think that he should gratefully and gracefully accept whatever assistance may be offered by other editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Cannata (talkcontribs) 16:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Sergio Cannata, I don't know where you got that idea but English is my mother tongue. Most of the content of the article wasn't written by me. As I've explained above, I've mostly tweaked sentences, move paragraphs around, made sure the balance of pros and cons was preserved, and found reliables sources. I don't feel anything about transhumanism besides some moderate sympathy. As for being grateful for assistance offered by other editors, I am towards the people who collaborated with me in the past to make Transhumanism become both a good and featured article rather than simply trying to use this article as a PR tool for the transhumanist movement. I find it funny that almost all the people who accuse me of feeling too much about this subject are enthusiastic if not fanatical supporters of this movement.... --Loremaster (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
TomAdmirer, I don't need any help. Transhumanism is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. --Loremaster (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Loremaster, I should kick you for directing me to that AfD page. My head hurts now and I think I need a shot. As a late-coming note to that issue from someone that seems to have been busy during all the excitement, it is frankly utter nonsense to claim anything less than a neutral stance in this and other related articles heavy with your involvement. I think it's now time to catch up on the recent changes to this wiki. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was Hkhenson who transplanted this discussion from that AfD page so he is the one who deserves your kick. Although you are too late, I thank you for your words of support and I agree with you that we should focus on recent changes to the Transhumanism article. --Loremaster (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)