Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Transhumanism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Images

There are too many science fiction images. Why didn't you use pictures of Natasha Vita More and of course Max More added in this article. I suggest that you get pictures of them. Christopher Sherman

Christopher, as the Transhumanism article explains quite clearly, some of the most widely known ethical critiques of the transhumanist program are found in works of science fiction which, despite presenting imagined worlds rather than philosophical analyses, can be used as touchstones for some of the more formal arguments. This is the reason why there are many images of these works of science fiction in the article. However, only 4 out of 13 images in this article are so-called science fiction images. As far as pictures of Max More and Natasha Vita-More are concerned, we settled on only adding an image of FM-2030 because of his role as the father of transhumanism but also copyright issues. However, I have no problem with someone adding pictures of the Mores if this obstacle is resolved. --Loremaster 03:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

History/New Editorial Contributions to Discuss

Christopher Sherman here with edits for this Wikipedia article. What follows are my suggested additions for the history section.

References and links for “Transhumanism History” section --

Writings to include. Author, cultural strategist/designer Natasha Vita-More

“Transhumanist Arts Statement” manifesto http://www.transhumanist.biz/transhumanistartsmanifesto.htm
“Transhuman History” http://www.transhuman.org/transhistory.htm
Create/Recreate: The 3rd Millennial Culture, “History of Transhumanism” http://www.transhumanist.biz/createrecreate.htm
“Transhumanism – the history” http://www.transhumanist.biz/history.htm
“The New Genre – Primo Posthuman” http://www.natasha.cc/CiberART%20-%20Primo%20Posthuman%20Future%20Body%20Design.htm
"FAQ #2 -- What were early influences on Transhumanist Arts" http://www.transhumanist.biz/transhumanistartsmanifesto.htm

Writings to include. Neuroscientist and Author Dr. Anders Sandberg hosts one of the finest historical essays on Transhumanism and all of these essays should be included.

“TRANSHUMANISM Towards a Futurist Philosophy by Futurist Dr. Max More http://www.maxmore.com/transhum.htm
“On Becoming Posthuman” by futurist Dr. Max More http://www.maxmore.com/becoming.htm
“Transhumanism” by Attorney Greg Burch http://users.aol.com/gburch3/thext.html
“Toward new ideologies” by Futurist FM-2030 http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Intro/ideologies.txt
“Transhuman Principles” 1.0a – 1.0a http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Cultural/Philosophy/Transhumanist_Principles.html

Writings to include. Transhumanism F.A.Q. Dr. Sandberg refers to Extropy Inst. and Sasha Alexander Chislenko for writing the Transhumanist Principles and the F.A.Q.

Definitions which should be included in a Definitions section on Transhumanism:

“Definitions of Transhumanism” http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Intro/definitions.html

Websites which should be included in Transhumanism Links should be

Christopher, many of these writings are already cited or alluded to in the Transhumanism article. So you will have to elaborate what you mean when you talk of including them. --Loremaster 21:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Christopher, at first glance, there is nothing wrong with any of those writings, but there are many relevant writings that we don't cite. I'll check the suggested links. But I'd like to know what propositions the other writings are meant to support. The references are meant to support claims made in the article. It's not that we think of references first and then find ways of including them. If that were the case, I'd have found a way by now to include the excellent little book by Ed Regis and some of the more important bioconservative texts that have been overlooked so far.

Regarding the history section, are there specific things that need to be said which these references would support? What important and verifiable facts are actually missing from the history as currently written? If you can identify them, of course they need to be included.

Regarding the definitions, I'll check that reference. It sounds like it might be useful. We can't put every definition that has ever been proposed into an article of this length, and we already have authoritative definitions from Max More and the WTA. But if there are a lot of other definitions that have been proposed historically, and there's a good article that lists them, then I think we should say so and cite the article. Metamagician3000 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just checked and see that the three websites you recommended are in the article. I'll check the other things as I go over the next few days. Metamagician3000 07:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now included a sentence on Anders Sandberg's collection of definitions, with an appropriate link. Metamagician3000 12:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Counter-vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/June_2006

Because of the controversial nature of Transhumanism, the article may be a target for vandalism around the time it is featured on the main page. I wonder if it can be administratively locked between June 1-3. Metamagician, can you do this?--StN 21:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The possibility of vandalism on the day Transhumanism is featured on the main page is something that I've anticipated since we first talked about improving the article to get featured article status. However, although I would love to be proven wrong, I doubt that a Wikipedia administrator will preemptively protect the page. Since Metamagician is not an administrator, I don't see what he can do beyond posting a request for page protection on the appropriate board, which is something you or I can do. --Loremaster 01:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster--Metamagician has recently become an administrater--please check his user page. Also, note that today's featured article, Tenebre, has been protected, at least for the day.--StN 02:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Great! You should use Metamagician's talk page to make sure he gets the message. --Loremaster 02:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think semi-protection might be enough. Any vandalism is likely to come from anonymous editors rather than established wikipedians. Metamagician3000 01:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

N.B. Please read the Featured Article Director's remarks on protection. According to Talk:Tenebrae (film), Flcelloguy briefly protected the page to deal with a vandalbot. I personally think this is a reasonable and justifiable course of action, but it's not something in which one indulges ahead of time. And yes, I was on hand to see the lazy bastards scrawl obscenities all over Thomas Pynchon's article when it had its twenty-four hours in the Main Page sun, and to keep dragging the article back to high quality. It's not a pleasant task to keep reverting, but there are generally multiple good Wikipedians falling over each other to revert Main Page FA vandalism, and hey, Wikipedia expects all good editors to do their duty. (-; Anville 20:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been asked not to semi-protect the article, after I raised the matter on the admins' noticeboard. As was pointed out to me - and Anville also points out - the main article is watched by lots of good wikipedians. I will, however, be vigilant about any acts of sabotage. Metamagician3000 00:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought as much. --Loremaster 00:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I also gave 86.133.14.127 a further warning. Any further sabotage edits should result in immediate blocking, either from me or any other admin you can find if I'm not available. Metamagician3000 00:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Good. --Loremaster 00:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Vatican statement

Metamagician -- I really think the paragraph you added about the Vatican statement is superfluous and suggest that you remove it. It adds nothing new about transhumanism, and is just an adverstisement for a theological alternative to TH. It would be like saying in the 'Brave New World' section that Fukuyama suggests instead emphasis on market-based solutions to human problems, or in the 'Enough' section that McKibben thinks we should concentrate more on the environment.--StN 15:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As a long-term contrarian, I disagree. Anything seems more important when the Catholic Church stands against it. (-; More seriously, isn't it important to illustrate the truly theological side of the "Playing God" argument, in order to show that calling the argument by such a name is more than a rhetorical exercise?

(sings) "Eee-very source is saa-cred, eee-very source is great. If a source is was-ted, Wales gets quite i-rate. . . ."Anville 16:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I understand StN's point, I have to agree with Anville. --Loremaster 16:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to all involved

This one of the best and most interesting articles I have yet seen, very clear, concise, and yet thorough. Good work to everyone involved! Jdcooper 00:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's the best Featured Article I've read.--Chris 00:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I also concur. Congratulations to all the editors who created this article. It is really an outstanding FA. Bwithh 01:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats. And the sources, wow! If all the articles looked like this, we'd put the Encyclopedia Brittanica out of business!--M @r ē ino 02:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

WOW!! That is all I have to say, Great Article! I am learning so much. We need more articles like this as the featured article on wikipedia! (Cardsplayer4life 08:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Biological Vs. Non-Biological

[Gregory Stock] believes that throughout the 21st century, many humans will find themselves deeply integrated into systems of machines, but will remain biological. Primary changes to their own form and character will arise not from cyberware but from the direct manipulation of their genetics, metabolism, and biochemistry.

Is this really a criticism of Transhumanism or just naive interpretations of transhumanism? You could still be a transhumanist and think that the way it will probably be implemented is through biological manipulation right (I'm sure many transhumanists do)? It just seems to me like its not really a criticism of transhumanism, just one (naive) interpretation of it. --Brentt 01:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And this would be your inpretation of an interpretation... --Loremaster 18:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Correctable Defects" document

GoodCop, this document is not a scholarly work, but simply lists a bunch of supposed defects that the author would like to do away with. There is no documentation concerning how many transhumanists would like to see which of them corrected. There is no research program or plan to avoid abuse, as you state, just a few words that care should be taken. Concerning "species", it mentions distinct human species of the future, once such "corrections" are made. This is just speculative, as it the idea that the various defects can be eliminated by altering specific genes. It is not NPOV for you to characterize this document in the way you have. I have left in a shortened reference to the document, since I believe it represents a significant strain of transhumanist thought not previously represented in the article.--StN 04:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

StN, do not lie; that is a violation of the wikipedia civility policy. Any person that actually READS the document can clearly see that it does not fit most of your claims about it. Regarding species names, the document is no more speculative than transhumanism itself. The idea that specific defects can be eliminated by altering specific genes is what transhumanism is based upon, so I take it that you have an anti-transhumanist POV, and insult the Catalog Of Correctable Omnipresent Human Flaws because you assume that, because we do not currently know the specific genes of the listed defects, that any reference that incorporates such unknowns, must invariably be garbage, regardless of the nature of it's content. Also, omnipresent traits of a species (which occur regardless of different environments) are, by definition, genetic, so that is hardly an assumption. The claim that the document is "not a scholarly work, but simply lists a bunch of supposed defects that the author would like to do away with" is the opposite of the truth, considering the document's thoroughness, scientific detail, and general analytical format, and the fact that all of the listed flaws are objective flaws which impair function, as opposed to the mere preferences of the author. Do not make such a libellous claim of the author that he would be so very immoral as to list flaws based upon his own subjective preferences. The claim that "There is no research program or plan to avoid abuse, as you state, just a few words that care should be taken" is also the opposite of the truth, as the document thoroughly describes the types of genetic modifications that are relatively safe and those that are relatively dangerous, the latter of which must be regulated by requiring specific [described] alterations in the character traits of the recipients of the dangerous modifications, so as to prevent abuse. "There is no documentation concerning how many transhumanists would like to see which of them corrected." -Such formal documentation of the positions of all transhumanists would be rather impractical, so it may be better to omit any mention of how many transhumanists support the modifications. GoodCop 05:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind, that this article is not a compendium of all works by transhumanists. Incidentally, StN's comments were perfectly civil. It is not civil to accuse people of lies, libels, etc, etc. Metamagician3000 07:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not falsely portray The Catalog Of Correctable Omnipresent Human Flaws as 'just another transhumanist document'; it is particularly notable. Do not second StN's lies by calling them civil; supporting lies is uncivil. Do not libellously accuse me of falsely accusing others of lies and libel, and do not libellously accuse people that truthfully point out lies and libel of being uncivil. Such libellous accusations are GROSSLY uncivil. GoodCop 01:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with StN and Metamagician. Futhermore, Nick Bostrom and the WTA do not consider it a serious transhumanist document. --Loremaster 17:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are your references that Nick Bostrom and most WTA members have stated that The Catalog Of Correctable Omnipresent Human Flaws is not a serious transhumanist document? If you do not provide such references, then I will assume that you made them up. I highly doubt that Nick and the other head transhumanists would sully the credibility of their own word by stating the opposite of the truth, that the document is not a very serious transhumanist document, but is actually NOT serious. GoodCop 01:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

1) I was refering to a comment made by Nick Bostrom in a mailing list or email conversation I read a few months ago.

2) Catalog Of Correctable Omnipresent Human Flaws can not be found on the WTA website. It is not refered to by any members of the WTA.

3) You seem to have a strong bias in favor of this document if you consider it to be the truth. Please remember that the idea here is to write the best possible neutral, well-referenced article about transhumanism, not to push the ideas of any particular thinker.

--Loremaster 16:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Tell me what mailing list Nick's comment was on, so that I can verify that it was actually made. Both yahoogroups and the transhumanist email lists have archives. Although the document is not on the WTA website, it is on the website of the german transhumanist association, which is rather reputable. Do not libellously accuse me of strong bias and attempting to push the ideas of a particular thinker when that is clearly not the case. Considering that the document is, as I stated "very important because it contains thorough information on various important technical and logistical aspects of transhumanism that are not covered by other transhumanist sources", it is biased to not include any description of it, and extremely biased to state that it is not even a serious document. Any person that actually READS the document can clearly see how useful it's thorough technical and logistical information is to ALL transhumanists. What I want to know is: What is it about this document that makes you and StN so very biased against it, that you degrade it despite it's seriousness and great usefulness, and project your own strong bias onto people that want to include it? e.g. Did you have a personal conflict with the author? Is there something in the document that you are particularly opposed to? Some other reason? GoodCop 04:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC / The Catalog Of Correctable Omnipresent Human Flaws

Should the article include a description of the most thorough reference of proposed transhumanist genetic alterations to correct human flaws, and guidelines for prevention of abuse of genetic alterations, and species names, research, and implementation (called The Catalog Of Correctable Omnipresent Human Flaws, which is at the url: http://www.transhumanismus.demokratietheorie.de/docs/the_catalog_of_correctable_human_flaws.html ), or should it be forbidden from inclusion, as Loremaster, Metamagician, and StN want? GoodCop 01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My input: The inclusion of a description of this reference is very important because it contains thorough information on various important technical and logistical aspects of transhumanism that are not covered by other transhumanist sources. GoodCop 01:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from making a succinct reference to it an appropriate place if it can be used to support a point that is made, or hould be made, in the article. However, there has to be a sense of proportion. I can think of many other articles, books, etc, that could be mentioned if we were trying to give an exhaustive reading guide. Metamagician3000 02:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Do any of those references cover all of the detailed technical and logistical information that the Catalog covers? If there are any other such references, then I have not found them. If your intent is to remove any descriptions of specific documents from the main text of the transhumanism article, then I recommend doing this:

Restore the mention of the Catalog in the reference list, then add to the main article text: "Though many transhumanists are more speculative about transhumanism, and are more interested in the excited anticipation of the future benefits of transhumanism and/or the political and social aspects of transhumanism, some transhumanists are more interested in the detailed technical and logistical aspects of thoroughly describing practical and relatively non-abusable genetic modifications, actively researching and implementing the modifications, practical taxonomic classification, and a definite method of preemptively preventing abuse of genetic modification. (add reference number here)"

-There, a generic statement about transhumanism that uses the document as a reference to back up the statement. I will add it to the article, and it should not be deleted. GoodCop 04:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Luciferism

I am deleting the following text for now: "Luciferism, an atheist political philosophy synthesizing satanism and transhumanism." I am unable to find any reputable source that verifies any connection between "Luciferism" and transhumanism. Anyone who can source this feel welcome to do so. Metamagician3000 08:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Loremaster 18:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Russian cosmism

To history section:

Russian cosmism is a philosophical and cultural movement that emerged in Russia in the early 20th century.

Ideas: radical life extension using scientific methods, human immortality, resurrection of dead people, space colonization, noosphere.

Despite similarities, I know of no transhumanist philosopher that acknowledges Russian cosmism as a forebearer of transhumanism. --Loremaster 18:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well then, one of us needs to write a scholarly article pointing out the similarities (and thus "advancing the state of knowledge" by padding our curricula vitae). Nyet? (-; Anville 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Loremaster 18:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

good article

this article is good.

Maybe it should be protected at least for today... NCurse_work 09:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Please see above. Bishonen | talk 09:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC).

Michael Jackson

The reference to Michael Jackson, and wording of that sentence, emerged from an exchange among the principal authors of this article, after confirming that he was also mentioned as an example of a transhumanist artist by other writers sympathetic to the movement. The reference is obviously not an endorsement of all, or any, of Michael Jackson's activitites. Unless an editor can establish that Michael Jackson is not an artist, or that his artistic activities have no relevance to transhumanism, s/he should leave this sentence in the article.--StN 15:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

From the article: "The American performer Michael Jackson used technologies such as plastic surgery, skin-lightening drugs and hyperbaric oxygen treatment to transform his artistic persona over the course of his career so as to blur identifiers of gender, race and age." Does this mean that it is established that he uses skin-lightening drugs? As far as I know, Jackson himself refute this and blame a skin disease. If it is only a rumour, maybe that should be reflected in the article.

Good point. --Loremaster 16:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

His use of skin-lightening drugs was not denied; this is the conventional treatment for vitiligo, the condition he says he has. But I changed the text to include the possibility that this treatment was not specifically undertaken to blur his racial identity.--StN 17:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Borg

Can someone slip in a reference to the Borg from Star Trek. As I see it, they're supposed to represent transhumanism gone wrong. Black-Velvet 16:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As per the No Original Research policy, we can't say that unless somebody else who is not a Wikipedian writing on a Talk page has said it first. Besides which, unless the external sources we found indicated that the Borg were really important to this argument, such a mention of them would properly belong in the Transhumanism in fiction article. And now that I look, it's already there—but it doesn't have a footnote, so we should fix that. Anville 17:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Anville. --Loremaster 17:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Kit Pedler and the cybermen were there first! --Artw 20:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Byerley was imagined in 1946. Relevant? That's for Original Research to decide. Anville 20:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms Headings

At present five of the criticisms are labelled with science fiction titles and one uses a book title rather than a descriptor, which seems inappropriately trivializing, focuses attention entirely on derivative/related works of fiction rather than the ideas behind the criticisms, and is often not entirely accurate.

"Playing God argument" should be split in two - "Theological criticism" and "Medical Ethics." The two arguments are very different from each other - the one draws on theological morals, while the other is based in questions of acceptable risk to an uninformed participant.

"Enough argument" would be better titled "Human Identity" or the like.

"Gattaca argument" could be better titled using a term found in the text body itself, "Biotech Divide," or "Social Stratification."

"Terminator argument" is just silly and trivializing - heck, we could at least make it "The Matrix argument," if we have to go movies. A better heading might be "Fears of Catastrophy" etc.

"Brave New World" is a bit better, but "Social order argument" might be better, as Brave New World contains elements of social stratification and destruction-of-the-individual as well - the harm to the indivdual, in fact, might be an even stronger theme in the book.

"Frankenstein" should be "Dehumanization" or such, and the line about critics "citing" Frankenstein should probably be reworded or removed - when it is mentioned, in my experience, it is in the casual use, i.e. refering to any meddling with life, creation of new creatures, rather than as a (shudder) support.

"Eugenics Wars" argument should be simply "Eugenics."

The continued referencing of science fiction as the base of or entirety of criticism of transhumanism is inaccurate and seems designed to trivialize the arguments of critics; transhumanism has created concerns which INSPIRE science fiction, rather than science fiction inspiring concerns about transhumanism. One might change refernces to "These concerns about XXXXX were the inspiration behind YYYYYY."

I'm not making these changes myself, 'cause I don't generally hang around here. I'll leave it to established members. -Akio

I too found the headings unusually unhelpful. Only after reading the sections could I look back and figure out what the heading meant, and even then, they didn't serve to identify the core idea (obviously they couldn't if one is unfamiliar with the work), and thus help organize my understanding of the article.

Rather than breaking the SF theme, perhaps simply extending the headings would help.

Futurehype argument - predictions are inaccurate

Playing God argument - theology

Playing God argument - medical ethics

Enough argument - limitations are important

Brave New World argument - society is changed

Gattaca argument - only for the rich

Frankenstein argument - subhumans

Eugenics Wars argument - conflict and genocide

Terminator argument - disaster

I've reordered these: Futurehype - God - God - Enough - Brave New World - Gattaca - Frankenstein - Eugenics - Terminator. So it's: core assumptions; ethics, ethics; can being-human exist in that environment; can society, and would we like it; three kinds of societal risks; disaster risks in general.

Are the Practical vs Ethical sections an artifact of earlier drafts? There is only one entry under Practical, and many of the critcisms under Ethical are practical (as defined the likelihood of transhumanist goals being achieved vs moral principles). Perhaps the Practical/Ethical headings should be removed? Though there is still a distinction between Futurehype and the rest. Futurehype is something like is this discussion of transhumanism asking the right questions / discussing the right technology evolution senario.

I too will defer any changes to locals, and a time when the article is off the front page.

I strongly disagree. I reverted these changes (made by StN) because of the damage this is creating to both the article and others that are linking to it (using the previous criticism headings). I will provide further explanation for this judgement tomorrow morning at the latest. --Loremaster 17:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I've combined both the previous and new headings. As for the reordering, I think this might be a good idea. What do the rest of you think? --Loremaster 14:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Hardly quantum mechanics"

As StN laconically puts it, "Hey Anville, transhumanism is hardly quantum mechanics." No joke—I think that's pretty obvious, and it's not just because the math is harder. In my judgment, which is of course the auric standard of all judgments, the separation between what H+ considers serious academic discourse and total body-loathing fluffery is far, far narrower than the distance between quantum field theory and the "vibrate your aura at a higher harmonic resonance" mumbo-jumbo. The uncritical acceptance of non-scientific notions like Kurzweil's "Law of Accelerating Returns" by people who are supposedly dedicated to using the fruits of science to improve the human lot makes my mind, well, boggle.

I met Kurzweil once, at a panel discussion a few years back where he and a few other inventor-types debated issues discussed in a book they had all co-authored called Inventing Modern America. (I was actually hoping to meet James Burke, who had written the introduction, but he was off traveling the planet and finding connections between exotic things.) All the panelists struck me as bright people with considerable doses of ability and optimism, though Douglas Engelbart was the only one who really appeared to have his feet planted pragmatically on the ground, who had a real grasp on issues and how to make good things happen. A friend of mine, a very smart fellow who worked in the MIT Media Lab designing artificially intelligent kitchen appliances until he could stand it no more, was also in the audience, and his impressions agreed with mine. (Some months later, we got started talking about it in the company of the young woman he was impressing at the time. He mentioned his approval of Engelbart's attitude, and then said, "Steve Wozniak looked like your friend's dad."

"Which friend?" the young woman asked.

"No, in general, your friend's dad: you know, the guy in the sweater vest who always says stuff like, 'Who made this music? It's got a great beat!'")

So, overall, I concluded that the ability to invent one or two cool things does not necessarily translate to an understanding of scientific methods or the way things work in general. For example, I have yet to see a graph come out of Kurzweil's graphic-design factory with error bars, and in all the verbiage about how much Moore's Law means to our future, the words "null hypothesis" are conspicuously absent. (Moore's Law is great: it even applies to razor blades.) I would suppose that in the investigation of our species's future and indeed the definition of humanity itself the investigators would hold themselves to the highest possible standard of scientific rigor, but such has not been the case.

Once I'm done with Science for the Pynchon Lover, I think I'll write a book entitled Transhumanism, Pseudoscience and Science Fiction. (Well, if I think up a cool classical allusion for the title itself, that might be the subtitle.) This would also offer the happy opportunity to geek over some great SF books and not just repeat the geeking others have done before me. After more than five kilo-edits as a Wikipede, one does get the desire to create something a little more permanent and a little more like Research with a capital R. Who's in with me? It'll be a great chance to put the good arguments invented in the Talk namespace on paper for the next generation of Wikipedians to cite.

Rambling the afternoon away, Anville 22:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Anville, you are free to write a critique of transhumanism but you should know that 1) although he is a proud Singularitarian, Ray Kurzweil does not consider himself a transhumanist; 2) despite appreciating the fact that Kurzweil is probably the person most responsible for spreading so-called transhumanist ideas into the mainstream, many transhumanist thinkers I have contacted tell me that they are trying to distance their views (which focus on the ethical and responsible development and use of emerging technologies) from those of Kurzweil which they judged to be too much futurehype. --Loremaster 23:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with StN) Well, see, that's the sort of thing which should be written down—does the written word record what the thinkers you have contacted said via personal communication? (That's an honest question, not a rhetorical one. In bits and pieces, I'm sure it does.) Besides, to elaborate on my vague notion for a book, I doubt it could be a critique of the entire "movement". My goal, insofar as my biases have shaped me, would be to separate out the meretorious from the meretricious. There looks to be plenty of both to go around. Anville 23:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, I didn't save any of the emailed conversations. --Loremaster 23:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the book is a very interesting idea, Anville. In the shorter term, however, it would be good if you could add some NPOV text informed by your perspective to the "Futurehype argument" section.--StN 23:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

We'll see how much I can generate without letting it become too Original. Anville 23:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Kaczynski: "zealot"?

The article calls Theodore Kaczynski an "avowed neo-luddite zealot". Could this phrase be gotten rid of altogether?

Despite the negative associations with the word, I guess you really could classify him as a "neo-Luddite". However, adding "avowed" and "zealot" to the description just seems to be meant to add judgmental and non-neutral terms to the description in order to devalue Kaczynski's position. These words aren't conveying any additional information. Even if he has publicly avowed himself to be a "zealot" (and there is no footnote here stating where he was quoted as "avowing" himself one), I'd hold that there is too much of a negative connotation.

This might be acceptable in an article outlining criticisms of Kaczynski's beliefs, but I think it is unacceptably non-neutral here. In a section on criticisms of transhumanism, Kaczynski's criticism (which isn't even being described in this article, and that looks lazy in itself) probably shouldn't be demeaned right at the start with this non-neutral language.

As well, go click on "zealot": it's an article mainly on the ancient jewish zealot movement, only periphally referring to the word's new and more general application, and the article has a neutrality warning. Now go click on "neo-Luddite": this article also has a neutrality warning. Using two words with neutrality warnings to refer to Kaczynski should be a good enough sign that the language describing him is unacceptably non-neutral.

Also, regarding Kalle Lasn: is there a reason that "culture jammer" is put in quotes here? Are the quotes suggesting that he isn't really a culture jammer, or just that he invented a term to refer to himself?

207.34.120.71 13:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced "avowed neo-luddite zealot" with "neo-luddite terrorist". --Loremaster 13:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Terrorist", of course, is not at all a loaded word, and Wikipedia articles on terrorism have never had neutrality issues. . . . Does finding neutral descriptors for mass murderers ever seem like an exercise in ~~futility~~ politics to anybody else? Anville 14:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

New text: Related notions were voiced earlier by Theodore Kaczynski (the Unabomber), a convicted terrorist with an anarcho-primitivist agenda, and Kalle Lasn, a culture jammer with neo-luddite views, who claimed that humanity has an inherent lack of competence to direct its own evolution and should therefore completely relinquish technology development. --Loremaster 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Images?

Why so many fair use images? My last FAC was almost lost until I dropped the number of fair use images down to about 3. Do any of the images even have their fair use rationale listed??? Image:FM2030.jpg has nothing, and at least one of the PD images doesn't have the proper tag... You've even placed a fair use image on the main page *gasp* --BRIAN0918 00:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:FM2030.jpg is not a fair use image. It is copyrighted, and the copyright holder placed it in the public domain.--StN 00:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree (except for the comments regarding the non-fair-use images not having rationales). Posthuman Future.jpg, for instance, doesn't seem to belong. The fair use tag associated with it states that it must illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question. It is not really serving that purpose. The same goes with Holy Tech.jpg, which is also a magazine cover. Playing God, Redesigning Life.jpg is questionable as well as the section seems to be talking about the idea of playing God instead of the book of the same name. I'm going to remove the first two, and surely that will attract readers to this talk page who either will agree or disagree. joturn e r 01:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; someone beat me to it. joturn e r 01:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Film posters and book covers

Film posters may be used "to illustrate the movie in question or to provide critical analysis of the poster content or artwork." "Discussing the film" is not enough. Book covers may be used "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question." Discussing the book in an article that is not about the book in question is not enough. Either accept that the images cannot be used in the article, or come up with a vastly more detailed rationale for fair use than you've given now if you want them to stay.--Sean Black 01:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care about the book covers etc one way or the other - I always had concerns about them. But for the record, I see no difference between an article "discussing the book in question" and an article that involves "discussing the book". An article either discusses a particular book or it doesn't. There's nothing that I've ever seen in the field of intellectual property law that says that an article in a publication cannot claim fair use unless it discusses only one book. That seems to be a distinction totally unknown to the law. For example, it would be quite appropriate for a publication to use the cover of Neuromancer if that novel were discussed in an article about 1980s science fiction, an article about cyberpunk fiction, or an article about William Gibson, or if the article had been published back in 1985 and had been about the books published in the previous year which had been Hugo-nominated. Etc. All of these examples and many more happen all the time, and it is inconceivable that there would ever be a successful challenge in the courts (or that the copyright owners of such works would have the slightest interest in challenging what is basically free publicity). An article does not actually have to be entitled "Neuromancer". Metamagician3000 07:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I was sorry to see Posthuman_Future.jpg removed from the intro to the article. Sure, it provides no "information," but I think it's a fine and evocative work of art that speaks well to the subject.

Just mu $.02 KarlBunker 13:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Karl Bunker. What would be the best of restoring this image? --Loremaster 18:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

FM-2030

Hi, I hope you don't mind my stating this and please take it as a suggetion for authenticity, rather than a criticism.

In deference to FM-2030, he would not be happy about revealing his age, birthplace and ethnic background, especially stating he was an "Iranian-American." And importantly, FM was not the father of transhumanism, his philosophical movement was "UpWingers" and he was indeed the father of the "transhuman." He did not fully support "transhuman" as a movement, which we strongly disagreed on. Max More is the accurate father of transhumanism, or as those who want to be politically-correct say modern transhumanism, but I truly believe that this is a low blow to Dr. More.

The image of FM which you are using is one he loved and I believe he would give you his full permission to use it. But that is not my call. If you are concerned about this, I have a picture that you can use. (Please email me privately, natasha@natasha.cc)

Thanks for the great work and I hope you see my comments are a desire to help preserve transhumanism's history.

Best wishes, Natasha Vita-More

Mrs Vita-More, the notion that an encyclopedic biographical article should not reveal the age, birthplace or ethnic background of a public figure because it makes him unhappy is ridiculous. However, the ethnic backrgound of FM-2030 will be deleted from the Transhumanism article since it is unnecessary. I will also edit the caption under the image of FM-2030 according to the facts that you pointed out. --Loremaster 22:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your very courteous observations, Natasha. It's true that an objective encyclopedia can't very well suppress things such as someone's age (as opposed to their precise date of birth). Your comments are welcome, though. I'll go and have a look at what Loremaster has done with them. Metamagician3000 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)