Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 2

Split long article
Might this longish entry be better presented as a series of pages? JasonS 03:34 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * absolutely yes, its way too long as it is, and it is very biased.

Dnagod 20:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
In the interest of ensuring transhuman is NPOV: Who decides what the definition of transhumanism is?


 * Every philosophy and discipline has a "father" who defines its principles. If these principles are widely accepted by his peers and the public at large over time, they become authoritative but not absolute.

This element of humanism, is that from huxley or someone else?


 * Max More.

Does the man who invented the word, Julian Huxley decide the definition of Transhumanism, does one in modern times who publically states the definition decide or does the World Transhumanism Association decide?


 * See my previous answers. More's definition simply won out.

I would like clarity as to who ultimately determines what transhumanism means because the definition used by the WTA and other groups differs. More importantly, what gives one authority or the command to be able to define in an undisputed what transhumanism is, so that other POV's can be excluded?


 * See my previous answers.

For instance I have reviewed the entire transtopia.org, prometheism.net and cosmotheism.net site, and I can't seem to figure out how you could label it as disputed in the links section?


 * They are labeled disputed because there is a dispute within the transhumanist community and on wikipedia about whether transtopianism, promotheism and cosmotheism are legitimate forms or offshots of transhumanism. The reason for this dispute is because these ideologies hold views that are imcompatible with the humanistic and scientific roots of transhumanism.

What is to say the world transhumanism association isnt disputed?


 * Even if it was, that's not the issue since the WTA and the Extropy Institute are not by themselves authorities on the definition of transhumanism as much as they are organizations representative of modern transhumanism.

I can see how one might label cosmotheism as white racial separatist, but prometheism.net and transtopia.org I would like more discussion as to why it is disputed as a transhumanism group. And why is Cosmotheism a disputed offshoot? Cosmotheism was developed in the 1960's and 1970's which came before extropy and WTA, so why is it an offshoot? I thought offshoot meant, that something existed and a branch or seed came off that plant. Can you please define offshoot and explain who decides what is or is not transhumanism?


 * You are absolutely correct about cosmotheism not being an offshoot of transhumanism. I will remove any mention of it from the article. As for the issue of dispute, see my previous anwers.

More on this humanism element of Transhumanism, is that from huxley or someone else? Thanks.


 * See my previous answers. You can also read the writings of Max More for more information. Loremaster 21:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The whole emphasis in prometheism, cosmotheism and transtopianism is the transformation of humans to higher states of being using any and all science that is available now, and embracing any emerging technologies that exist in the future. This is what defines a transhuman organization, not politics or religion, but the goal of human transformation through science to higher states of being.

Cosmotheism dispute revisited
Why does the link to cosmotheism keep getting deleted? Just because that article had a banned user associated w it doesn't make it any less relevent. Sam [Spade] 20:56, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Spade, I don't mean to be offensive but stop playing dumb! The link keeps getting removed not because the article was associated to a banned user, who may or may not be a good acquaintance or even friend of yours. As I have said before, the issue is one of accuracy. Strictly speaking, cosmotheism is a form of classical pantheism that identifies God with the cosmos, that is, with the universe as a unified whole. Transhumanism is a form of modern humanism that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. According to these basic definitions that we all accept, the two concepts are obviously NOT related and of no relevance to each other. Bottom line: I am the one who keeps removing the mention of "cosmotheism" from the Article and will keep doing so every single day if necessary. Loremaster 23:19, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Your attitude in this statement is generally is anti-wiki, and specifically you make a Faulty generalization, assuming that the classic definition of Cosmotheism is the one we are discussing, when in truth the relevant variety is William L. Pierce's Cosmotheism. Sam [Spade] 23:40, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I have explained myself in your talk page so I won't bother repeating myself. However, while not related to secular transhumanism, I will grant you that William L. Pierce's cosmotheism is arguably related to Christian transhumanism and eugenics so I have moved your link to those pages. I hope this finally ends this dispute once and for all. Loremaster 18:17, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Cosmotheism has nothing to do w Christianity. Have you researched this? I have noticed a positive correlation between arrogance and ignorance in my life. Sam [Spade] 03:44, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I never said that cosmotheism has something to do with Christianity. However, the similarities between cosmotheism and Christian Transhumanism are obvious since both are millinarian religions. As I said many months ago, I have researched this topic and I have visited those dubious websites linked to below. This is why I am again removing any reference to Cosmotheism from the Transhumanism article for reasons I have already explained in the past and for the following one as well: Cosmotheism, transtopianism and prometheism hold views that are incompatible with transhumanism. Lastly, I am disappointed that you would resort to a personal attack, however underhanded it may be, after you lectured me about anti-wiki behavior... Loremaster 00:34, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Loremaster you are wrong, biased, unfair and have a personal agenda which goes against the very principles of wikipedia and neutrality. Let me break some reality to you. The man who invented the word transhuman - Julian Huxley, was an avid, open, public and published supporter of state sponsored coercive eugenics, selective breeding communities. So when people try to hijack his term and say it means something else, it is not only ignorance, arrogance and foolishness - its an outright LIE. If anything the WTA is NOT a transhuman organization because they are against eugenics. If Julian Huxley where alive today, he would wonder why these groups hijacked his terms and made it into something it is not. Transhumanism includes eugenics, to say otherwise is a LIE. This doesnt mean transhumanism is only eugenics, it is saying that eugenics is a subset or part of the transhuman philosophy, which is attaining higher states of physical and mental being. Eugenics might be a slow method, but none the less it is still valid. To say other wise is patently false and a lie. Stop trying to hijack transhumanism for your own agenda. NO one, absolutely no one has the final say on what transhumanism is or is not and all points of view regarding transhumanism. the WTA does not now or will ever have the final say on what transhumanism is and the web sites prometheism, cosmotheism and transtopia.org are relevant, valid and important web sites that belong perminently listed in transhumanism. In fact I dare say that transtopianism (transopia) is a much more highly evolved and thoughtout meme set than WTA, but that is just my personal opin. Prometheism, Cosmotheism and Transtopianism are all clearly transhuman philosophies and I would appreciate it if you kept your personal biases OUT of ruining wikipedias neutrality, fairness and POV support. Dnagod 17:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This issue of whether or not prometheism, cosmotheism and transtopianism are legitimate forms of transhumanism has already been debated ad nauseum and a consensual conclusion was reach to end this dispute a long time ago. Therefore, I will not repeat myself except to say that this article is about apolitcial and secular transhumanism. You are more than welcomed to create new articles for these fringe philosophies and groups. Loremaster 21:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Although cosmotheism was conceived of and created by Dr. William Pierce in the 1960's and early 1970's it was still created after the term "transhumanism" was created and therefore is valid to be linked to in the disputed links section. Even though cosmotheism would most likely not be disputed by the creator of the word transhumanism, as Julian Huxley was a Eugenicist. I fail to see how even with transhumanism redefined that cosmotheism would be disputed or even worthy of being deleted, it seems you might be playing a personal agenda here loremaster by deleting this link. Dariodario 13:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Human Cognome Project
I'd like to incorporate a mention of the Human Cognome Project into this article, as it is relevent to human brain augmentation and AI research. Any suggestions? -- Dave User:Sydhart


 * I've added it to the Transhumanism and technology section. Loremaster 21:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pseudo Transhuman web site links
Why is transtopia.org, prometheism.net and cosmotheism.net labelled pseudotranshuman organizations? To me that represents bias as to why those web sites would be labelled pseudo, what makes a web site pseudo?

On the front page of prometheism.net it states the following

(Prometheism is) The First Sovereign Transtopian & Neo-Eugenic Libertarian Religious-State.

In the principles sections of prometheism it states

Our Promethean Species embraces Conscious Evolution

Our immediate aim is to create a neo-eugenically enhanced race that will eventually become a new, superior species with whatever scientific means are available at the present time. In the short-term, this will be achieved via neo-eugenics, ie. voluntary positive eugenics, human cloning, germ-line engineering, gene therapy and genetic engineering.

In the long-term, when the science becomes available we intend to utilize transhuman technologies: nanotechnology, mind uploading, A/I and other variations of ultra exo-tech.

Our goal is to enable total and unlimited self-transformation, consciousness and expansion across the universe of our species.

It also states note the key words - Transhuman Technologies... and the embracing of transhumanism and extropy.

We Define neo-eugenics as conscious evolution (these words are interchangeable). Purposefully directed evolution via voluntary positive neo-eugenics (including voluntary selective breeding), cloning, genetic engineering and ultimately any and all transhuman technologies. Neo-Eugenics means harnessing all science, technology and knowledge available now or in the future, guiding it with spirituality, ethical considerations and higher consciousness, ultimately towards achieving total and unlimited self transformation. The term Neo-Eugenics embodies the sciences and philosophies involved in Biotechnology, Extropy and Transhumanism all merged in a philosophy of spiritual Conscious Evolution.

http://prometheism.net/principles.htm

I believe removing prometheism from this page, will be cause to bring this issue to arbitration to confirm that the individual who keeps removing it obviously is biased and lacks an understanding of what transhumanism. NPOV. thats your problem brian NPOV and blatant bias.

Dnagod 22:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * FYI, please place new comments in Talk pages at the bottom. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This issue of whether or not prometheism, cosmotheism and transtopianism are legitimate forms of transhumanism has already been debated ad nauseum and a consensual conclusion was reach to end this dispute a long time ago. Therefore, I will not repeat myself except to say that this article is about apolitical and secular transhumanism. You are more than welcomed to create new articles for these fringe philosophies and groups. Loremaster 21:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Loremaster, Please show me where these debates are, and please explain how a leftist-marxist WTA is a secular organization? Since when is lefist-marxism secular? Where did I get this term leftist-marxist from? James Hughes publically describes himself as a post-marxist socialist, who is the secretary and co-founder of the organization and also the individual who wrote the vast majority of the policies and philosophies for the organization WTA (world transhumanism organization). So how can that be secular? Extropy, comes out into the open publically claiming to be a right wing conservative organization which has huge threads and discussion on supporting and promoting gun rights. How are these things NOT political? Theres no such thing as secular in Transhumanism, every transhuman organization has a political agenda. Thank you for your kind consideration. Dnagod 20:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 1. The debates can be found on this page and by looking at previous versions of the Transhumanism article.
 * 2. You seem to be confusing secular with political: Left Marxism or Post-Marxist socialism are not religions. On the contrary, they are secular political ideologies. So even if the WTA was "leftist-marxist" it would be still be a secular organization. Regardless of whether or not the WTA or the Extropy Institute are political organizations, this article is not about them specifically. It's about transhumanism. Loremaster 22:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Under this guise, cosmotheism and prometheism are clearly self-defined spiritual or religious transhuman organizations, the question at hand is whether transtopianism (transtopia.org) is secular or religious. I think from the content on the site it is clear that transtopianism is not a religious organization. Could you please define for us why prometheism and transtopianism are not humanist or based in humanism, where as extropy and other organizations which are heavily noted are considered humanism. This seems to be the central crux of one of the many disputes.

Manifestos
Extropy and a lot of the other sites listed under manifestos are linked else where in the article, so I felt it important to also include these manifestos


 * Principles of Prometheism
 * Principles of Transtopianism

Please do not revert to childish insults, and a biased personal agenda removing these links, they belong their and represent Principles which I dare say are some of the most interesting, fascinating and creative principles.

Don't abuse your privileges here and force your agenda on this topic of transhumanism, all perspectives are welcome here whether you like it or not.

Dnagod 17:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This issue of whether or not prometheism, cosmotheism and transtopianism are legitimate forms of transhumanism has already been debated ad nauseum and a consensual conclusion was reach to end this dispute a long time ago. Therefore, I will not repeat myself except to say that this article is about apolitical and secular transhumanism. You are more than welcomed to create new articles for these fringe philosophies and groups. Loremaster 21:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think transtopianism (transtopia.org) is not secular?


 * I never said it was. However, it is clearly political. Loremaster 19:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

STOP removing these links, you are biased, emotional, unfair, unbalanced and lacking in neutrality.


 * Principles of Prometheism
 * Principles of Transtopianism

These links are to stay, and you have no right to remove them. They are valid and legit links, Do not abuse your privileges on this project or you will be revoked.

Dnagod 02:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Not taking sides on the issue of those links themselves, I should point out that Loremaster has exactly the same rights you do when it comes to editing this article and that removing links that aren't relevant to the subject of an article is not an "abuse of priviledges". Furthermore, I should mention the policy "no personal attacks" that we have here. Please refrain from attacking users instead of making arguments about the subject of the debate you're having with them, it's not going to help matters any. Bryan 03:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not biased, emotional, unfair, unbalanced and lacking in neutrality. I've already explained why these fringe ideologies are incompatible with the humanistic and scientific roots of transhumanism. However, to end this dispute, I created the Fringe ideologies and groups section to include these controversial links. Someone removed this section but I added it back because I knew someone like Dnagod would eventually come along and add these links in sections where they shouldn't be. This article is about Transhumanism not its dubious offshoots. Loremaster 19:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The man who invented the word Transhumanism (Huxley), was an open, avid and published advocate of state sponsored coercive eugenics, selective breeding, and elitist eugenic communities. Therefore you are wrong, and thus the specific issue of VOLUNTARY eugenics does NOT violate in anyway, shape or form, being part of transhumanism. You are wrong, biased, unfair, unbalanced, and lacking in neutrality. Transtopia.org and prometheism.net DO NOT SUPPORT COERCIVE EUGENICS in their PRINCIPLES, THEY SUPPORT VOLUNTARY - EUGENICS - READ VOLUNTARY. Forgive the capitalization, but I do that for emphasis, not to scream.

please stop removing these links, you are biased, emotional, unfair, unbalanced and lacking in neutrality. These are not personal attacks, these are stated facts that you have not read the prometheism.net web site.


 * Principles of Prometheism
 * Principles of Transtopianism

These links are to stay, and you have no right to remove them. They are valid and legit links, Do not abuse your privileges on this project.

I ask you to bring arbitration and discussion on this fact. Your censorship, bias and personal agenda will not win. Go to prometheism.net right now and find one place on this site that says prometheism supports COERCIVE EUGENICS. you will not find it anywhere. Prometheism.net clearly states that it only supports voluntary eugenics. Read the sworn oath on prometheism.net

The Sworn Oath of Prometheism (front page of prometheism.net)

We Prometheans are voluntarily coming together to purposefully direct the creation of a new post-human species. A species with higher intellect, creativity, consciousness and love of ones people. A communion of intellect and beauty, for the simple reason that it can be done. This creation is what gives us purpose and meaning. No other justification is required for this program to advance our Promethean species.

Next I want you to read the Principles of prometheism http://www.prometheism.net/principles.htm

2. Our Promethean Species embraces Conscious Evolution

Our immediate aim is to create a neo-eugenically enhanced race that will eventually become a new, superior species with whatever scientific means are available at the present time. In the short-term, this will be achieved via neo-eugenics, ie. voluntary positive eugenics, human cloning, germ-line engineering, gene therapy and genetic engineering.

5.  Total Freedom, Liberty and Self-Determination

Our Libertarian religious nation is founded on the principles of total freedom of speech (including offensive language and language which hurts peoples feelings), freedom of thought, the right to bear arms, liberty, progress, productivity and the pursuit of individual happiness.

Membership to our Sovereign libertarian neo-eugenic nation is VOLUNTARY ONLY. We REJECT all totalitarianism and believe COERCIVE neo-eugenics is counter to the ideal of individual freedom. The promethean governments sole purpose is to protect the rights of the individual. We DO NOT wish to STERILIZE anyone or FORCE anyone to practice neo-eugenics.

DNA or genetic capital is the most valuable commodity in the universe. Our primary goal is to promote positive and voluntary neo-eugenics by channeling national resources to the best, brightest and most creative.

We Define neo-eugenics as conscious evolution (these words are interchangeable). Purposefully directed evolution via voluntary positive neo-eugenics (including voluntary selective breeding), cloning, genetic engineering and ultimately any and all transhuman technologies. Neo-Eugenics means harnessing all science, technology and knowledge available now or in the future, guiding it with spirituality, ethical considerations and higher consciousness, ultimately towards achieving total and unlimited self transformation. The term Neo-Eugenics embodies the sciences and philosophies involved in Biotechnology, Extropy and Transhumanism all merged in a philosophy of spiritual Conscious Evolution.

This is from the principles of prometheism.net Last Updated: 3/13/03 this means that prometheism is NOT FRINGE, it does not support the fringe philosophy of FORCED COERCIVE EUGENICS. Again the capitalization is not screaming, its meant to provide emphasis. Also my comments about you not being very knowledgeable about prometheism.net and transtopia.org are not meant as personal insults or personal attacks, but as an observation.

Dnagod 20:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Dnagod, you're the webmaster for these sites, so it is you who is being biased. SlimVirgin 20:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't make these links live again. You've been inserting multiple links to your websites on talk pages for the last few days, but it isn't going to work so give it up. We also know you're connected to User:Paul Vogel. SlimVirgin 20:29, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Why are these links not valid to be listed on transhumanism under manifestos? Please explain, and dont throw this BS at me that they arent valid because im the webmaster and writer of these manifestos. So what? So what if I wrote both of these documents? It doesnt mean they are not valid to be included under transhuman manifestos.


 * Wikipedia has a rule against self-promotion. You may refer to your own published material if you're a recognized author with a reputation for expertise in a particular area. You are not. If you feel you are, please give us your name so we can check that out. At things stand, you're trying to use Wikipedia as free commercial space for your personal websites, and you won't be allowed to do it. The harder you try, the greater the number of people who will oppose you. SlimVirgin 04:38, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)