Jump to content

Talk:Transhumanism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Loremaster (talk | contribs) at 16:13, 4 October 2006 (→Arguments against ''Frankenstein'' and cloning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:0.5 held

WikiProject iconHistory of Science Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archive

Archives of previous discussions can be found at:

---

IMPORTANT: New Contributors

Having invested a lot of time and energy in editing the Transhumanism article, the primary contributors insist that all claims for and against transhumanism, or otherwise, be accurate, properly attributed, and well-referenced. We want the article to be the best possible resource for anyone (e.g. students, journalists, cultural critics) who is interested in the subject. Despite having conflicting views, we all cooperated in an effort to make the article comprehensive, rigorous and stable enough for Featured Article status. Therefore, we recommend that you take the time to discuss any major addition or deletion of article content in this talk page before proceeding otherwise the article may be reverted to an older version. --Loremaster 00:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it is indeed an excellent article, I don't think any special procedures for handling future edits are warranted. I would worry about setting a precedent for other Featured Articles, some of which fall far below the quality standards set here (see the May 31 Nostradamus article for an example).--Chris 01:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't proposing any special procedure. I was simply pointing out something that is common sense on Wikipedia. --Loremaster 18:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from the Featured Article Candidate page:

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

I agree that something could be done to improve the External links section. However, according to a Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster 21:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Userbox

Is there currently a Transhumanist userbox? There was one previously, that I was using, but it was deleted in one of those random userbox deletion sprees. Thanks.

MSTCrow 00:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no template - which I think is appropriate as I think that all such userboxes expressing adherence to a religious, political , philosophical, etc., belief should gradually be removed from template space. However, if you want I can help you userfy the old box, or you can feel free to copy the code for the box that merely expresses interest in transhumanism from my userpage. Metamagician3000 02:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is expressing interest different from expressing support? Oh, and if you look at the tail end of my userboxes, you'll that I'm strong supporter of userspace expression.
MSTCrow 02:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously a huge difference between expressing interest in something and supporting it. I am interested in many belief systems that I actually disagree with (not so much transhumanism, as it happens, since I have a lot of sympathy for it, blah, blah). Anyway, this is not the place to debate userbox policy. I told you my view and offered in good faith to help you. Do you want my help or not? Metamagician3000 07:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is this user box available: {{User Singularitarian}} Morphh 12:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like Metamagician, User:Khat Wordsmith has found a way to have a transhumanist user box. --Loremaster 00:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currents and Criticisms

Current edit: "There is a variety of opinion within transhumanist thought. Many of the leading transhumanist thinkers hold complex and subtle views that are under constant revision and development. Some distinctive currents of transhumanism are identified and listed here in alphabetical order:"

Input from a fresh reader: The article may yield greater utility if the Currents section gave associations and organizations and perhaps even people's names as examples. The categories of criticism have great examples of publications and people. More links to articles advancing the specific arguements could help keep things concise. I, for one, enjoyed the back and forth of the Criticisms section as it currently stands- it isn't too long, yet. As a reader without a vested interest in who got the last word in, I didn't notice a "winner" or "loser" for any of the Criticisms presented. Thanks for all of your collective hard work and the resulting great article. Adelord 22:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Adelord. I've also been thinking of expanding and improving the currents section along those lines. --Loremaster 22:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have my thanks as well. See, maybe that's what we need: outside perspective. Anville 18:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Loremaster 17:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To which we might add "psychedelic transhumanism" as espoused by Paul Hughes (link to interview). Anville 15:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a mention of "psychedelic transhumanism" in the Currents section. --Loremaster 17:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Need to add "Transhumanitarianism" - Advocate: Natasha Vita-More.
I've removed the following text from the Currents section:
*Transhumanitarianism, a means of addressing current global issues through a conscientious transhumanist outreach.
There is no online evidence that Natasha Vita-More has explicitly advocated "Transhumanitarianism". Regardless, new currents within transhumanism are only worthy of mention in an encyclopedic article if they have been advocated by a prominent transhumanist thinker or activist (like Natasha Vita-More) for a significant length of time and gained some currency within the transhumanist culture. This article should not be used to legitimize or promote neologisms and new ideas that popped into the head of some transhumanist that morning. --Loremaster 17:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am told that "transhumane" and "transhumanitarianism" are part of Vita-More's PhD thesis. She eventually wants to promote transhumanitarianism (for a more transhumane future) as a current within transhumanism. It therefore does not yet reach the standard of notability needed to be listed in the Currents section. --Loremaster 12:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must offer a note of caution. Having met Bruce Sterling, and having appeared on a panel about transhumanism with him, not very long ago, I can say that I'd be amazed if he was prepared to accept the title "transhumanist" or to concede that his views are a current of transhumanism. The same may apply to others on the above list. Metamagician3000 12:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about Sterling but I don't see the same problem with the others. --Loremaster 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, several of the others are known to me (i.e. I've met them and/or studied their work) and you're right: they are definitely self-identified transhumanists. Others, however, I've never heard of and wonder about, though you are probably right about them, too (e.g. Green). But then there's Hayles - from the little I know of her I'd be a bit surprised if she identified as a transhumanist, or thought her work was a current of transhumanism, even if she is a "posthumanist" thinker in some sense. Of course, I've been surprised before. Do you know how she positions herself vis a vis transhumanism? Anyway, it's just a general note of caution about how we identify people unless we're confident of how they identify themselves. Metamagician3000 14:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, N. Katherine Hayles does not identify herself as a transhumanist. However, I think she does consider herself a posthumanist. Can someone be a posthumanist without being a transhumanist? I say Yes. Can someone be a transhumanist without being a posthumanist? I say Yes. --Loremaster 20:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell (from one book), N. Katherine Hayles is a theorist of embodiment, and therefore rides against the general current of transhumanism and posthumanism. I would associate her with thinkers like Susan Bordo. At the very least, she is way more subtle than Hughes, et al. If transhumanists are moving towards this style of thinking, there may be hope yet.--StN 21:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I or someone else will have to ask her. --Loremaster 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since transhumanism and posthumanism are not the same thing, how is embodiment theory not part of posthumanist thought? --Loremaster 22:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what you mean, but isn't one mainstream notion of transhumanism a transition to the posthuman state? I think Hayles's concept of the posthuman recognizes the constraints and limits of the human organism. It's been a while since I read her book, but I don't recall her being positively disposed to genetic engineering. I doubt she would encourage (or even accept the possibility of) mind uploading. I agree that she can be a posthumanist without being a transhumanist.--StN 01:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although these terms are often confused, Posthuman and posthumanism are not the same thing. --Loremaster 17:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[De-indent] I have taken the liberty of removing the following material, while keeping it here in case it is of any value for another context or for reworking:

  • Posthumanism, an emergent philosophy that seeks to transcend the principles of Renaissance humanism and bring them into closer correspondence with the 21st century's ideas of scientific knowledge.

We all seem to agree that posthumanism as described in this quote and the relevant article is not the same thing as posthuman or a sub-set of transhumanism. Metamagician3000 02:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. We should perhaps mentiom im the article that posthumanism is a synonym for transhumanism, especially in the United States. --Loremaster 03:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a source for that. I'm not disputing it; it just seems to me to be the sort of thing that should get some kind of attribution and referencing as we strive to keep the article at FA standard. Metamagician3000 10:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currents section

What evidence is there that anybody actually believes in the "currents" of transhumanism listed in this section? The article Anarcho-transhumanism cites only one website (which contains only a list of suggested books on transhumanism and anarchism and has no information on the site's authorship) and makes no definite claim that anybody believes in anarcho-transhumanism other than it's founder, Pablo Stafforini. If I were to call my particular beliefs Schaeferian transhumanism, register a web domain, and design a pretty website that gives an outline of what I believe, can I add my philosophy to this list? -- Schaefer (Talk) 21:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, Christian transhumanism cites a private website and an article in Betterhumans, which only describes the views of one person, Mark Walker. Psychedelic transhumanism provides no evidence of any followers other than Paul Hughes. Technogaianism also lacks any definite claim of notability. Transhumanist socialism is supported by a single article on Kuro5hin and a content-free website made by the article's author that hasn't been updated in half a decade. I'm inclined to remove all of these. -- Schaefer (Talk) 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schaefer, you bring up a good point. However, please refrain from deleting anything until the main contributors of the article have had a chance to discuss this issue. --Loremaster 23:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though a main contributor to the article, I didn't contribute to the Currents section and am not committed to keeping it. I suggest that the important tendencies be described in a narrative paragraph, and that a citation be made to an article, if one can be found (e.g., a WTA survey or history) that mentions them.--StN 02:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more in favor of keeping the Currents section but removing some of the marginal ones listed in it and expanding those that are left. --Loremaster 18:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been especially comfortable with this section, but have tended not to edit it because I don't know enough about these various alleged "currents". Some of them do seem obscure; also, as we discussed above, a couple of them are seemingly not really currents of transhumanism at all, but something tangentially related to it, or perhaps even opposed to it. I'd support anyone who wants to cut the section ruthlessly. I'd also support any work, such as Loremaster suggests, that expands (with good sources) anything there that is actually of significance to the transhumanist movement. Metamagician3000 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone opposed to removing Anarcho-transhumanism, Christian transhumanism, Psychedelic transhumanism, Technogaianism, or Transhumanist socialism? There seems to be a consensus that at least some of the currents should go, and these are the ones I'd like to remove if no one objects. -- Schaefer (Talk) 17:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting only removing them from the Transhumanism article or also putting them to a vote for deletion? I say we leave them here and see whether or not they survive a vote. --Loremaster 13:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No particular objection, as such ... but I'd like to see some more input. I wonder who originally produced this material. It was there before I began to work on the article, and I've just kind of worked around it. Ideally I'd like to see it pared down to whatever is verifiable and clearly notable, but I'm not sure what that would actually be.
Loremaster, I don't think I understand your proposal in your last sentence. Could you clarify it, please? Metamagician3000 15:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply suggesting that, rather than removing the mention of these currents from the Transhumanism article, we could tag Anarcho-transhumanism, Christian transhumanism, Psychedelic transhumanism, and Transhumanist socialism as articles for deletion to see if they survive. --Loremaster 19:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty to remove the mention of these currents from the article and I've started a deletion debate on all their respectives articles. --Loremaster 19:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. It reads much better now.--StN 20:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good. I agree with StN; I'm glad to see some surgery here. Per the discussion above, I also don't see posthumanism as a current within transhumanism. It should be mentioned in some (concise) way, but putting it in a list with these other "currents" seems wrong to me. Any disagreement about that? Any suggestions as to how we handle it? Metamagician3000 00:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I was the one who added Posthumanism to the Currents section, I've always had doubts. Even if we remove it, we would still have to acknowledge somewhere in the article that posthumanism is, rightly or wrongly, a synonym for transhumanism in the United States. Futhermore, some anonymous user posted the following comment on the Talk:Posthumanism page which provides additional context: "in Europe the philosophical (postmodernist) posthumanism paved the way for the engineer's posthumanism of the Moravecs, Minskys etc.: Posthumanist philosophers and authors belonged to the first people in Europe who made references to Moravec etc. and included texts by the posthumanist engineers in their publications. One central common feature of both posthumanisms is the idea that machines (including machine intelligences) will become ever more important "actors", and that for this reason the centrality of the human being (as in classical humanism) is an old-fashioned idea." --Loremaster 11:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the section above, I brought the term "psychedelic transhumanism" to the attention of those reading this Talk page (10 July 2006), and Loremaster added it to the Currents section some time later. I have no real opinion about keeping it or deleting the stub article on it (I largely forgot mentioning it here, even). Anville 19:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anville, you may want to participate in the debate on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Psychedelic_transhumanism page. --Loremaster 13:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The articles on Anarcho-transhumanism, Christian transhumanism, and Psychedelic transhumanism have been deleted. --Loremaster 17:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The article on Transhumanist socialism was deleted. --Loremaster 14:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

The Amish transportation example is a bit tendentious, Loremaster, though I know McKibben used the Amish as an example. Perhaps we can find a picture of a teen-ager driving a Prius, alongside one driving a Hummer while talking on her cell phone. --StN 19:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Since McKibben held up the Amish as an example to follow when it comes to technological relinquisment, I think the image is more than appropriate. If he hadn't, I would agree with you. However, I am open to replacing it with a better image. As for your Prius vs Hummer picture, I am not interested in going through the copyrights hurdles needed to justify uploading it for an article about transhumanism. --Loremaster 21:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StN, I added your Biocomplexity Spiral image to the Playing God argument section. Hope you're happy. --Loremaster 23:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested to me that Micheal Gibb's Genetic Destiny (http://www.michaelgibbs.com/medical_art/images/graphics/gibbs_11.jpg) would be perfect for the Gattaca argument section. However, we would need to find the appropriate rationale to justify its use in an article on transhumanism. As for Peter Pan, using an ad that epitomizes our culture's obsession with youth would be quite appropriate (http://www.ahavaus.com/site/images/anti-aging_main_img.jpg). --Loremaster 23:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to see the Biocomplexity Spiral back. The Prius vs. Hummer idea was not entirely in earnest. The Genetic Destiny image is nice, but as an artistic metaphor is less likely to qualify for fair use than book covers or even the Gibbs magazine cover we were all sorry to drop earlier. The Ahava ad is great, but I doubt whether an ad would qualify for fair use.--StN 00:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problem with any of the images that have been added. The Amish one does illustrate the point made by McKibben, and not in a way that subtly comments on it or anything as far as I can see. I don't see it as all that high a priority to have a lot of images, as long as there are some to break up all the text of this long article. I don't, for example, see any need to find an image for each section. But good work all the same. Metamagician3000 00:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond some tweaking here and there, the article is pretty much complete so adding images is the only thing left to do to enhance it. --Loremaster 16:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes less is more. I might be alone in this opinion, but I really don't see what all the face pictures add to the article. The article is about their ideas, and their physical appearance only serves to distract. The human tendency to better judge ideas based on the physical attractiveness of their supporters is very well documented. Good-looking people are always perceived as being much smarter (moreso than they really are—there is a positive correlation between phsyical attractiveness and IQ, but not nearly strong enough to account for this bias), friendlier, etc. They also serve to reinforce the gender of transhumanism's proponents more than is necessary. Numerous studies show that people, even well-educated people on the review boards of scientific journals, review ideas put forth by women with more skepticism. The APA style guidelines specifically forbid the inclusion of first names in references, despite the resulting lack of specificity that makes many-a-researcher's life miserable, to avoid this sexist bias. Pictures of the supporters of transhumanism are not only uninformative noise, they're anti-informative noise. -- Schaefer (Talk) 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
uh, I am not sure what this rant is all about. Wikipedia encourages contributors to add images to articles. Since we have had no choice but to remove art work that illustrated some concepts related to transhumanism, we've added most of these images because it is informative or, at the very least, interesting to attach a face to the names of notable people mentioned in the article. Futhermore, 8 out of the 13 of these images are not of supporters of transhumanism. --Loremaster 17:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if it sounded like I was accusing transhumanists in particular of including pointless images, as that was not my intent. I am aware that many of the pictures are of transhumanist opponents, but this does nothing to augment the worth of their inclusion. I'm not claiming that the images bias the article in any particular direction. It's not as though someone went out of their way to find the best-looking or worst-looking of one side and deliberately included those pictures. There's no malice at work here, as far as I can tell. But the images are still noise, and whatever extent to which they bias the readers is only icing on the cake of all the other reasons why uninformative pictures shouldn't bee included in articles: they take up space, they take up bandwidth, and, in this case, they increase the reliance of Wikipedia on copyrighted material. I don't see how the portraits are informative at all. They contribute nothing to the reader's understanding of transhumanism or its criticisms, which are the subject of the article.
I wouldn't be so vocal about this if the article restricted itself to including only one or two portraits, but thirteen? The article on evolution, which undeniably has more names associated with its development, uses only two portraits (Darwin and Gregor Mendel). The article on calculus only shows Newton and Leibniz, despite over 300 years of subsequent contributors to the field. Psychology has three portraits. Economics has one. Autism has three. Why does transhumanism, which is much newer and has had so many fewer people study it, need thirteen portraits? It's just plain excessive. -- Schaefer (Talk) 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I think it would be more informative to replace Ray Kurzweil's image with the Paradigm Shifts Events chart, Aldous Huxley's image with one of an artificial womb or clones, Mary Shelley's image with one of a chimera, Francis Galton's image with the Eugenics Congress Logo, and Bill Joy's image with an outbreak risk map of the United States. --Loremaster 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would certainly be an improvement. -- Schaefer (Talk) 18:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Schafer's comments, and would be in favor of making many of the substitutions Loremaster suggests (although charts and maps don't work very well in the typical sizes used here), and removing portraits of the movement's stalwarts, except perhaps for FM-2030, and critics, as well as that of Natasha Vita-More, whose contributions, in the form of her artwork, are amply recognized in the top image.--StN 03:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the number of pics of individuals may be overdone, though I don't think there can be any criticism of actually depicting thinkers who were foundational, or who are now leading, in developing transhumanist thought. The main thing is that decorating the article with images is not all that important. Maybe there are simply too many images, now. It's good to break up the text a bit, and it's nice put faces to the names of some of the main thinkers. But the article really stands or falls on the quality of the text. Metamagician3000 11:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are too many images. However, I do think we could and should add images that are more informative. --Loremaster 16:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Paradigm Shift graph is unreadable at the scale used. Even when blown up it is obscurantist in the absence of additional information, and in its original context is only of marginal scientific value. The Bostrom portrait, if it is to be retained, would look much better cropped about 15% on the left and a few percent on the right.--StN 22:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the Paradigm Shifts Events chart. Perhaps an image of the flying car (or some other gadget) people expected to already have by now might be better for this section. As for Nick Bostrom's image, feel free to improve its location and size without my permission. --Loremaster 03:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have inserted a cropped version of the Bostrom picture, but it will be deleted unless the copyright holder adds a fair use statement to the image page.--StN 03:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Loremaster, if you hold the copyright on this picture, or know who does, please respond; its fair use has been contested. --StN 02:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally hold the copyright on any of the pictures I have or want to upload to Wikipedia and add to some articles. However, I am contacting people who know people who know people... --Loremaster 02:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking more about Schaefer's comments, I've removed all pictures of transhumanist advocates from the article. All these pictures can be found on the respective biographical articles of these individuals. --Loremaster 17:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Frankenstein argument section, I've replaced Mary Shelley's picture with one of a human-dog hybrid family. --Loremaster 23:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Young Family" illustration is ideal for this section, but since the article is not about this work, or even about the artist who produced it, the image fails the fair use test in my opinion.--StN 02:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know. I am working on finding the appropriate license and adding a good fair use rationale. --Loremaster 08:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drexler and Alcor

In 1986, Eric Drexler published Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology,[1] which discussed the prospects for nanotechnology and molecular assemblers, and founded the Foresight Institute. As the first nonprofit company to research, advocate for, and perform cryonics, the Southern California offices of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation became a nexus for futurists. Not all these activities were explicitly concerned with "transhumanism", but some of the involved individuals eventually had a pioneering role in the movement.[2]
  1. Has Drexler ever identified himself or his work as transhumanist?
  2. Although Alcor became a nexus for futurists, was it a nexus for transhumanists?
  3. What are activities explicitly concerned with transhumanism?
  4. Who are these individuals who eventually had a pioneering role in the movement?

--Loremaster 14:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never come across a connection between Drexler and transhumanism, though transhumanists have taken up nanotechnology. The rest is vague, and can all go as far as I'm concerned, unless documentation emerges in the next two weeks.--StN 20:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that Drexler does sometimes hang around at transhumanist conferences and so on, so he has associated himself to an extent with the transhumanist movement (which of course is not the same as saying he identifies himself as a transhumanist). All that is just a vague impression that I have, and which may be wrong. I didn't write that material (though I may have worked on it for style, etc., from time to time), so I don't know what the author had in mind. It may have come from George Dvorsky way back when the article was first written. It still seems to me as if it's probably about right, and it's never been queried by people like Natasha who we know have looked at the article - but I can't provide you with sources. Metamagician3000 00:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bostrom mentions Drexler and his work in his essay on the history of transhumanist thought while Hughes also mentions him in Citizen Cyborg. However, I still question whether or not Drexler and his work should be identified as transhumanistic even if it technically is. Any thoughts? --Loremaster 00:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we simply need to explain how the work Drexler and Alcor contributed to the the transhumanist movement and/or theory. --Loremaster 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the text in question from the article until we form an opinion as whether or not a version of it should included in the article. --Loremaster 15:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should include it. Drexler's work on nanotech, even just the theory of it, is integral to transhumanism, since it offers a plausible mechanism for many of the technological advances that a lot depends on (ie. like how computers can increase in power sufficiently to support uploads). --maru (talk) contribs 19:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A new version of this text much explained how Drexlerian nanotechnology and Alcor cryonics directly contributed to the formation of transhumanist thought and/or movement. --Loremaster 01:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Loremaster, "must explain", right?--StN 19:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Loremaster 14:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankenstein argument

Is this the intended logic of the rebuttal to the "Frankenstein argument"?: "Humans are wholely artificial; there is little natural about them that is of any significance. Therefore, human-animal chimeras, and animals, if substantially altered, should be considered persons." Frankly, the connection is not obvious, regardless of whether the premise is true or false. Indeed, the structure of this argument suggests that the further a human is modified away from its biological species identity, the more human it is.--StN 03:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the homo technologicus argument was only meant as a contextualization of Keekok Lee's argument. There is no direct connection between it and the transhumanist rebuttal to the Frankenstein argument. --Loremaster 13:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find the argument confusing, too. But then again, I find the so-called "Frankenstein argument" confusing. I would understand it if the argument were something like this:
P1. If we create non-human beings with personhood, under current social conditions, they will probably be mistreated (as Frankenstein's monster was).
P2. The mistreatment of any being with personhood is a moral catastrophe.
C. Under current social conditions, we should not create non-human beings with personhood.
I think that this is going to turn out to be deductively valid, given some additional uncontroversial (yes?) assumptions such as that we should not do anything that will probably lead to a moral catastrophe. The only question is whether the first premise is true. It probably is on some interpretations of what a "non-human person" is. Accordingly, depending on which senses of P1. are actually true, the argument is a sound one to avoid doing something under current social conditions. It could then also be deduced without too much trouble that:
C'. If we plan to create non-human beings with personhood, we should first alter current social conditions.
Of course there could then be a lot of debate about whether this is practicable, and in any event whether utilitarian harm might be done by trying to alter current social conditions and whether any counterbalancing benefit could be obtained by creating these "non-human persons", etc.
But none of this is the argument we actually report, as far as I can work out. The argument we report is some confusing gobbledeegook about "dehumanising projects", or whatever. I find it hard to understand what this amounts to, or why "dehumanising" in the sense relied on here is even supposed to be a bad thing (I mean, I can think of lots of other senses in which dehumanising people clearly is a bad thing, e.g. it is dehumanising human beings in a morally reprehensible sense if we deprive them of goods that they need for their flourishing, such as leisure, opportunities for friendship, and respect for their rationality - but those senses are not relevant here, and any reliance on them for their moral connotations will commit the fallacy of equivocation). Accordingly, I have no idea what the Frankenstein argument that we report is really all about or how anyone could sensibly respond to it. Metamagician3000 02:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of which suggests to me that some further thought needs to be given to what the Frankenstein argument really is. That might then help us identify whether it is has been answered by anyone (either wholly or in part). Thought might also be given to whether the argument is an argument against transhumanism per se, as opposed to an argument against some things that some transhumanists want to do. It's not clear that transhumanists, as such, want to become "non-human" in the sense required, though they may well want to become posthuman in some sense (basically to do with having vastly greater cognitive and physical capacities, life expectancies, etc., than they have now). Nor is it clear that transhumanists, as such, want to see non-human persons in the requisite sense created - though some individual transhumanists seem to have ambitions that would indeed, as far as I can see, fall afoul of my version of the argument. Metamagician3000 02:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to remove the homo technologicus argument. We should expand the Frankenstein argument's counter section using Bailey's critique of many versions of it in Reason magazine. --Loremaster 14:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am really struggling to make sense of the section as it is currently written, and I'm going to try to revise it when I get a chance. I have quite a lot of questions in my mind, and I'll use this page to try to sort them out. I'll try to be as precise as I can about pinning down what worries me about this particular section as currently written. Metamagician3000 01:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read Ronald Bailey's articles, you can see that many people oppose chimerism and genetic engineering because of the fears expressed in the Frankenstein argument. So the problem is not the argument but the counter-argument which doesn't clearly explain why some of these fears are nothing more than alarmism. --Loremaster 12:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Loremaster, are you saying that the counterargument should "explain" why some of these fears are nothing more than alarmism, or do you mean rather that it should present the arguments of Bailey and some others that the "Frankenstein" fears are alarmist. Only the latter would be appropriate in this article.--StN 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I meant. --Loremaster 23:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Back to margin] Yes to both of you, but I'm now finding the actual argument very unclear. Lots of rather different things seem to be being run together confusingly. I'll explain at length when I get a chance. Before I'm through, I guess I'll need to read the specific texts referred to; it might then make more sense to me who is supposed to be saying what, but that should be transparent to the reader.

As a side note, I increasingly have a general problem with original research in the long "Criticisms" section. This worries me more and more as the section grows, and as I stand back and consider the article as a whole. We often seem to be synthesising what could be said for or against transhumanism by various people who are not actually discussing transhumanism at all, but merely discussing certain possibilities that some transhumanists want to pursue or certain tendencies that they might favour. Still, it's probably too late for me to make a fuss about that. Metamagician3000 01:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond expanding the Frankenstein counter-argument, I'm opposed to the Criticisms section growing. --Loremaster 15:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Bailey resource


Frankenstein argument - trying to get this clear

In italics below, and indented, is what we currently have. I am interpolating questions in plain type with bold where I need to emphasise something in order to draw a distinction, etc:

Acknowledging the power of biotechnology to make profound changes in organismal identity, bioconservative activist Jeremy Rifkin and biologist Stuart Newman argue against the genetic engineering of human beings because they fear the blurring of the boundary between human and artifact.[54][36]

Why do we say "acknowledging"? Isn't this POV? In any event it is not at all clear what the bit up to the word "identity" has to do with the bit after the comma. I can't see for the life of me see what argument is being attributed to Rifkin and Newman with this subordinate clause/principal clause combination, beyond the empty fact that they fear the blurring of a supposed boundary between human and artifact. That is hardly an argument, and I'm not even sure what it really is that they fear. "Artifact" and "human" are not things that are separated by any boundary. It's like saying "blurring the boundary between green and square" or "blurring the boundary between liquid and warm". Eh? Something can be human (in the sense of being a living thing with DNA readily recognisable as that of the species Homo sapiens sapiens), while also being an artifact under various definitions (e.g. something brought into being by technological intervention). There's just no logical contrast here, anymore than there is between things of a certain shape and things of a certain colour. This whole first sentence just seems to make no sense at all. Perhaps someone can explain to me what it is trying to say.

Philosopher Keekok Lee sees such developments as part of an accelerating trend in modernization in which technology has been used to transform the "natural" into the "artifactual".[55]

This makes slightly more sense, though it still seems like a crazy distinction to make at this stage of the history of philosophy. John Stuart Mill demolished such distinctions a long time ago, as did David Hume even further back. I find it hard to believe that an argument based on the need to retain a distinction between the "natural" and the "artifactual" could be considered an important one. On its face, it has no credibility with secular philosophers. However, if I am wrong about that, let's at least be clear how the words "natural" and "artifactual" are being used. As Mill and Hume showed, such words can be used in various senses (and it is unlikely that any of them are morally salient).

Metamagician, I totally agree. This is the reason why I added the homo technologicus argument. --Loremaster 15:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the extreme, this could lead to the manufacturing and enslavement of "monsters" such as human clones, human-animal chimeras, or even replicants, but even lesser dislocations of humans and nonhumans from social and ecological systems are seen as problematic.

Who is saying this? Is it Lee's argument? Is it something that Lee, Newman, and Rifkin all say? Is it something we are saying? Or what? Some clarity would be very useful here.

Except for the mention of replicants, both Newman and Rifkin have expressed these fears in various interviews. --Loremaster 15:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The novel The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896) and the film Blade Runner (1982) depict elements of such scenarios,

Who is saying this? Neither of these has much to do with transhumanism, though it's true, I suppose that some transhumanists favour uplifting non-human animals to humanlike intelligence (but not to enslave them or whatever - I don't see how the idea fits in here). If some critic of transhumanism invokes these works, we should say so, but if it is just a comparison we are making in passing I think it should be deleted.

Journalists critical of chimerism often cite the novel The Island of Dr. Moreau.
but Mary Shelley's 1818 novel Frankenstein is most often alluded to by critics who suggest that biotechnologies (which currently include cloning, chimerism and genetic engineering) could create objectified and socially-unmoored people and subhumans.

I suppose this is correct, but who are these individuals who make these suggestions? Is it Newman? Rifkin? Lee? Other people? All the above? I wouldn't mind this sentence if it stood in isolation but in the context of the para, which has mentioned some specific people, it has become confusing just who is saying what. I think we need to spell it out.

Such critics propose that strict measures be implemented to prevent these potentially dehumanizing possibilities

In what sense are they "dehumanizing"? Who is being dehumanised? Who is saying that something is dehumanising - Rifkin? Lee? Us? I don't see any basis at all for saying that someone is being dehumanised - at least not in the full range of possible cases. It may be that some being we create will be mistreated, which would doubtless be a moral wrong, but that is something else. Perhaps someone human will end up being treated in a way that could be described accurately as "dehumanising", as if they are forced to work in conditions that are damaging to their cognitive and creative capacities or to their "finer" feelings, but it's not at all clear that the word would be applicable in the range of cases being hinted at. Again, the argument just is not at all clear. Can't we say what argument is really being put, and by whom? If the argument is that we will inevitably be unsympathetic to certain human-like, or human, beings if we create them, and so we will inevitably mistreat them, let's say that clearly, and attribute the claim to whoever is making it.

Every critic of human genetic engineering mentions it's potential dehumanizing possibilities. Intentionally creating "subhumans" that would serve as slaves or organ donors is their greatest fear. --Loremaster 23:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
from ever happening, usually in the form of an international ban on human genetic engineering.[56]

If it's "usually", then presumably not everyone mentioned says this, yes? So just who is asking for a ban on human genetic engineering on this particular basis? I'd also like some more clarity about how the argument we are reporting actually works. Is the argument this: "Unless we ban human genetic engineering it will (inevitably) be used to create beings whom we will mistreat"? That seems like a bizarre thing to argue. Leaving aside, its superficial implausibility as an empirical claim ... why not ban creating certain specific kinds of beings (such as large, ugly humanoid monsters) who are especially likely to be mistreated, rather than banning human genetic engineering? Or why not ban mistreating such beings (including any large, ugly humanoid monsters someone might be foolish enough to create)? We don't ban cars because they can be used as getaway vehicles - not even if it is inevitable, given current social conditions and human nature, that some people will use them that way! We criminalise certain uses of cars and, in the interests of safety, heavily regulate their normal use and their design. But that's a different issue; this discussion is not about user safety. So are Rifkin etc really arguing in a way as confused as all this sounds? I'd just like to make sure we express clearly what they are saying. If it is really something this dumb, we should be clear that it is (without editorialising about its dumbness, of course). If it is something more intelligent, we owe it to them and to our readers to convey the arguments more accurately. We should, of course, report their actual arguments, not some kind of caricature and not some kind of improved version of our own. Just the facts of "Rifkin makes this claim ..." "Newman argues the following ...".

Although I agree with your position on this issue, I think almost every bioconservative critic mentioned in the Transhumanism article is calling for ban on human genetic engineering on this particular basis and others. Regarldess of how bizarre you think this argument is, it doesn't change the fact that important people are arguing it. --Loremaster 15:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the para needs to be longer. Perhaps some of it can even be cut. I do think we need to know the answers to the above questions, and then to write the para more straightforwardly. As it stands, I'd be hardpressed to explain to anyone what the Frankenstein argument reported here really is and whether any one person has actually argued the totality of it. It looks a bit like something cobbled together by us from various sources - hence original research - but that may simply be because of the way it is currently expressed.

I'll do some reading to see if I can answer some of the questions myself, but presumably others might already know some answers. Metamagician3000 11:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Frankenstein can be improved, I don't really understand why you have such problems with it. --Loremaster 15:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Loremaster here. It's all in the book "Frankenstein": a well-motivated technological attempt to produce an improved human. The experiment gone awry, leading to an organism subjectively unmoored from any social connections with like beings and objectively seen as alien and lesser by the community. No intention to enslave. Consequences arising not from premeditated ill-will on anyone's part, but nonetheless entirely negative, and plausibly so. The only things that have changed are the existence of technologies by which such experiments may be attempted, and a philosophical movement, transhumanism, that advocates undertaking this program. Metamagician may not see it this way, but many informed writers do, not all of whom are "bioconservative" on other major issues.--StN 23:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Metamagician, do you accept that there are any properties of the universe (e.g., the chemical elements) to which the term "natural" can be appropriately applied? If so, is there a (somewhat, not entirely unambiguously) distinct category of things for which "artifact" is an appropriate description? If "no" to both, please refer me to passages in Hume and J.S. Mill which "demolish" this distinction.--StN 23:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankenstein tells the story of a the creation of a being who is seen as frightening and ugly and is subsequently (and inevitably) mistreated by human beings. He responds revengefully and demands the creation of a mate - which Victor Frankenstein has qualms about and ultimately refuses to do. I certainly do not argue that it would be wise to create beings like that - which one reason why I am consistently opposed to the "uplifting" project that some of my transhumanist friends like James Hughes and George Dvorsky support. They are probably sick of this by now. :) One of the conclusions of my own research (pretty much unpublished so far re this particular point, so it can't be cited) is that we should be wary of using technology in ways that threaten affective (as opposed to effective) communication, which even the internet does to a considerable extent (note all the flaming that goes on when people can't hear tone of voice or read facial expression). That doesn't mean I want to ban the internet, just that it is a downside that we need to be aware of and careful about. The same applies even more to the creation of beings who will not have our evolved repertoire of means of affective communication. Frankenstein's monster is an excellent example of such a being. In my opinion, creating something like that would be a mistake - and I'm sure I have plenty of company here, though not necessarily for the same reason.
Meanwhile, I'm not denying that the rhetoric of Frankenstein, and Victor Frankenstein's own narratorial observations, present all projects of "playing God" with life as hubristic. Nor am I denying that the reference to Shelley's novel is salient. I'm just trying to get clarity here on a whole lot of stuff that is unclear to me, as per my questions. I'm afraid I can't ask the questions any more precisely than I already have; I tried hard to explain what I find confusing.
Various distinctions can be made between "the natural" and "the artificial", or whatever, but that is a completely different distinction from the distinction between "the human" and "the artifactual". The latter distinction strikes me as incoherent (though it might be true that the distinction has actually been made by human cultures which falsely believe that it is coherent). The former distinction merely lacks moral salience. However, if some of these people - Rifkin, etc. - are making these distinctions I just want what they are saying to be clear in the article - because the distinctions are very puzzling ones, at least to me. Hume and Mill don't deny that some distinctions can be made; their point is that those distinctions lack moral salience. I'd also like to be clear on who is saying what. From experience, I think most philosophers would agree with Hume and Mill - that's why I'm surprised that the view of a philosopher who evidently disagrees is considered to be so important. I'll track down some page citations and post them later. The relevant books are Mill's On Nature (really a long essay and often collected with other works) and Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature. Metamagician3000 02:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main issue for proponents of the Frankenstein argument is that humans are biological species and therefore, like all such species, are products of biological (and in the human case, social) evolution. None of this evolution to date has involved altering the organism's material nature or biological development by genetic engineering or chimerism. The outcome of such manipulations are not guaranteed to have the same species identity as the prototype. So technology can indeed bring about changes that are morally salient (unless you don't agree that an organism containing 35% human cells and 65% pig cells might have a different moral status in many people's view than a human.) So maybe the philosophical subtleties are less important than the practical effects of technologies not anticipated by Hume et al.--StN 03:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but this seems like a different argument. For what it's worth, I think it might be unwise to create an organism that is 35 per cent human cells and 65 per cent pig cells, and actually bring it to birth. The same would apply if the DNA of each cell was 35 per cent human and 65 per cent pig. There might be some good scientific reason to create such beings and let them develop as embryos to a certain point. However, if we actually let some a creature develop to the point of sentience or to the beginnings of personhood there is a great likelihood that it would end up being mistreated or at least having a rotten life even if we tried to treat it well. I don't think the issue is whether it would have the same "moral status" as a human being. That's a very slippery concept. What I'd say is that if it was sentient it would be a fitting object for certain sympathies (as cows, pigs, parrots, etc. are). If it was also rational, self-conscious, intelligent, etc., it would be a fitting object for additional sympathies. However, we could find our imaginative sympathies, based on our recognition of these intrinsic properties, in conflict with our moment-by-moment lack of sympathetic connection to it - or perhaps even by revulsion. That would be an undesirable outcome. So I would put the argument against creating such a thing in different terms again.

Of course, how I would frame the argument isn't important. I'm just trying to get a handle on what Rifkin, etc., really say. I'm not saying that no good argument can be put against any kind of transgenic or chimeric organism - I agree that there can be good arguments against such proposals and also that they are arguments about practicalities. But what is ascribed to Rifkin and so on at the moment is not an argument about practicalities. It's actually an argument about large philosophical claims about the wrongness, or the rational fearfulness, of breaching certain abstract boundaries. Perhaps the arguments they have published to date are (with all respect to them) in philosophically naive terms, and maybe they'll sharpen it up philosophically if they read this very debate. :) But we can only report what they have actually said so far, and simply saying that they are afraid of blurring certain allegedly important boundaries seems rather weak. Can't we represent their published positions, and distinguish any variations among their positions, more precisely?

All that said, I don't want to change anything except in the interests of clarity. I can criticise their arguments elsewhere. Here, my concern is merely to report them accurately and intelligibly, and with all respect to you and Loremaster I recently found that the harder I tried to understand what was written under the "Frankenstein argument" heading the more confused I became. I've only given criticisms on the talk page to the extent I've found necessary to try to make clear why I find some of it confusing.

The other thing that worries me in all this is: How is it a criticism of transhumanism? Isn't it just a criticism of certain proposals that not all transhumanists need accept? I wish we could be clearer about this distinction throughout. You, for example, once said, IIRC, that you are not opposed to the transhumanist doctrine of morphological freedom. Perhaps others feel the same way. I think that's a more core transhumanist doctrine than the idea of bringing to birth new kinds of animals that may have humanlike cognitive capacities but not the human psychophysiological structure of affective response and communication. Metamagician3000 05:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some of what you say. But Rifkin, Newman, Lee, Annas, et al., have actually written about blurring boundaries between the human and nonhuman, and human and artifact, and making species altering changes. This has all been in response to the same scientific developments that many transhumanists welcome and seem impatient to see implemented. As far as I know none of those writers has explicity mentioned transhumanism. But it doesn't seem fair to not report these negative responses to transhumanist-type proposals of germline genetic engineering, etc. made by so-called technoprogressives. One of the elements of the Frankenstein criticism is the inherent fallibility of the technology. Even if germline genetic engineers intend to make improvements, they are likely to inadvertantly make impaired individuals as well.--StN 06:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, James Hughes is the only self-described techno-progressive who has made transhumanist-type proposals of germline genetic engineering. There are probably as many techno-progressives who are opposed to such proposals as there are who are in favor of them. --Loremaster 13:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still owe you (and Loremaster if he wants them) some more precise citations to Hume and Mill; I haven't forgotten. I don't propose to make any changes to the article for now. It's a useful exchange and maybe it can just be a resource for all of us for awhile - for developing our own thinking and deciding over time whether there's anything in the article that any of us can clarify. Metamagician3000 07:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to improve the Frankenstein argument regardlesss of whether or not you can provide us with these citations. However, if you can, they would be very much appreciated. --Loremaster 13:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what editions people have access to, but for the interest of both of you, here's what I was referring to: David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, 1739-1749; rpt. London: Penguin, 1985: esp. pp. 525-27; John Stuart Mill, "Nature" in Three Essays on Religion, 1874; rpt. Amherst: Prometheus, 1998: esp. pp. 4-8. I'm not suggesting that any of this should be cited in the article (it would take us far afield), but this is in partial explanation of where I am coming from. Metamagician3000 14:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. --Loremaster 14:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing clarifying edits from Loremaster and Metamagician. I just want to note that the Keekok Lee book referred to is diffcult to obtain, but really rewards reading. I don't suggest that her arguments be amplified here, but will only note, in case other editors can't get it, that her conclusions are not made without due consideration of the history of classical and modern Western philosophy.--StN 16:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against Frankenstein and cloning

Mary Shelley was a hysterical scientophobe. Everyone seems to forget that she has a character murder a physician and condemn all scientists to hell for organizing public vaccination campaigns! The Frakenstein monster is actually her extreme critique of the idea of transplanting organs, a medical procedure which now saves countless of lives... --Loremaster 00:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a reductive reading of this prescient work. I guess H.G. Wells must have also been a hysterical scientophobe.--StN 01:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually repeating the opinion of two (anti-transhumanist) science philosophers discussing the myth of the mad scientist she created. As for H.G. Wells, I have far more respect for his work. --Loremaster 01:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other critics of the abuse of power and technology who have been described as "hysterical": Ida Tarbell, Rachel Carson, Jane Jacobs. There seems to be a trend here.
Uh, neither I nor the science philosophers whose opinion I was repeating have described these three individuals as hysterical so I find your insinuation insulting. --Loremaster 13:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point, perhaps made too obliquely, is that "hysterical" is used only against women. Others who make similar points in a similarly forceful fashion, H.G. Wells, Aldous Huxley, Aldo Leopold, or even dissimilar points in an even more strident fashion, Reagan, G.W. Bush, Rumsfeld, are never referred to as hysterical. Sorry for seeming to suggest that it was you who said this about Tarbell et al. But maybe my actual point should be considered by you or your sources.--StN 15:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is well known and understood by many people. However, when I and others are critical of the anti-cloning hysteria, for example, we are implying that some anti-cloning advocates, most of whom are men, are hysterical. --Loremaster 16:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification: (i) Is someone who is against general human cloning under the current state of scientific knowledge, where it is clear that hundreds of genes become misregulated when mammals are cloned, being hysterical? and (ii) Is someone who is against pilot projects in which early adopters undertake to clone humans, to see what happens with the clones later on in life, so as pave the way for eventual widespread cloning in the future, being hysterical?--StN 17:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. When I talk of hysteria, I refer to opposition to cloning based on science-fiction scenarios where Saddam Hussein clones himself or an entire army of his best soldier. There is a surprising number of intelligent and relatively influential people who have uttered such ricidulous fears as one of many reasons to ban human cloning forever. --Loremaster 17:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was the scenario of "The Boys From Brazil" (1978). I haven't heard an educated person raise this spectre, and certainly not in print, for many years. If you think this is seriously being put forward by anyone of repute, we should have a Boys From Brazil argument in the criticisms, and I will be happy to supply a decisive counterargument. However, I challenge you to come up with any scholarly or journalistic version of the "cloning a bad guy" argument that has been published in the past ten years. If you are correct, it should have figured prominently in the discussions of the President's Bioethics Council.--StN 23:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been plenty of journalists who have come up with their own version of the Boys from Brazil scenario as an anti-clonning argument ever since Dolly was born. However, my point was not prove that all anti-cloning advocates are hysterical or that we need to create a new argument for the Transhumanism article but that I and many other people use the word "hysterical" to describe men as well. --Loremaster 14:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who were the philosophers of science that you had in mind, Loremaster? Regardless of whether it is wise to apply the word "hysterical" to a woman, and thereby risk being thought guilty of sexism, I find that information quite interesting. Metamagician3000 10:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French philosopher Dominique Lecourt. It might interest you to know that he wrote a critique of both bioconservatives like Fukuyuma (whom he calls "biocatastrophists") and transhumanists like Kurzweil (whom he calls "techno-prophets") in his book Humain, Posthumain. --Loremaster 14:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Drexler 1986
  2. ^ Bostrom 2005
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transhumanism&oldid=79472476"