Jump to content

Talk:List of transhumanists

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

How can you have a list of trasnhumanists. There's no way it could encopass everyone who belives in trashumanism. I'm a trasnhumanist. I'm not on here. Tobyk777 01:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like all lists on Wikipedia, the list of transhumanists is only for notable transhumanist thinkers or activists. --Loremaster 01:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, the list should be checked to determine the notability of each person listed there. --Loremaster 03:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transhumanist userbox

Is there a transhumanist userbox? If not, could someone create one? The Converging technologies is quite a good one for the desaturised thumbnail with a superimposed H+.
Reply to David Latapie 18:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cryonics membership

Considering the origins of transhumanism, cryonics membership is a significant factor. Is there are reason to revert the addition of this information about the people in the list? To be sure, the information is not complete, but that's a work in progress. Keith Henson 13:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't appropriate information for an encyclopedic list. --Loremaster 13:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, in light of the fact that cryonics is a pseudo-science and pseudo-technology that undermines the credibility of anyone associated with it, whether it be the provider or the client, transhumanists would be wise to keep their cryonics membership private... --Loremaster 13:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Loremaster, do you consider yourself a transhumanist? Do you know any of them? Would you consider talking to some of them about this? Keith Henson 14:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't consider myself a transhumanist. However, I do subscribe to the wta-talk list to better grasp their world view. If you look in the list's archives, I think someone recently started a debate about cryonics called “I said no to cryonics”. --Loremaster 16:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that would be appropriate is to mention who on the list is deceased. --Loremaster 16:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only people being so noted are those who are openly public about it. Keith Henson 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but my point is still that even if cryonics membership was a prestigious thing to have, encyclopedic lists of individuals don't detail such information. --Loremaster 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned above that it would be appropriate to note the ones who are deceased. Ones who are deceased and in suspension are people who practiced what they preached. Likewised ones who have taken concrete steps such as making cryonics arangements are special cases. You delected Vernor Vinge. Why? Keith Henson 14:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I accidently deleted Vernor Vinge by mistake when I reverted the article to a previous version. His name has now been restored to the list. That being said, I don't think it is appropriate for an encyclopedic list of individuals to mention their membership to cryonics or the Raelian Church or whatever. --Loremaster 18:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone on this list *was* a member of the Raelian Church, that would be both of great interest and a likely cause to reconsider them for the list. I frankly don't think a living person can be a serious tranhumanist without being signed up for cryonics or at least giving it deep consideration. Virtually all the early extropians/transhumanist were signed up or at least felt guilty if they were not, one could almost say this movement grew out of cryonics.
Regardless of how you feel, I don't think a list is the appropriate place for such information. --Loremaster 00:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One other matter, why did you call my attention to a discussion on the transhumanist talk page last January? Unless it is in some archive, nothing on those subjects (Raelism or scientology) shows up on the page. Frankly I can't imagine subjects further from the topic. Keith Henson 20:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Click on this link to the wta-talk archives: http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/private/wta-talk/2007-April/017414.html --Loremaster 00:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Authorization failed." You can post it here or mail it hkhenson@rogers.com. There has been discussion on this topic recently on the Extropians Chat mailing list and it does seem to be apparent that doing something such as making cryonics arrangements is a significant element as to taking a transhumanist seriously. Keith Henson 02:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is still that this is information that is not appropriate for an encyclopedic list. Why is this so hard for you to understand? An encyclopedic list of humanists will not mention their membership to a particular humanist organization or project. I obviously have no problem with you mentioning cyronics membership in the respective articles of the individuals in question (if they have articles). --Loremaster 20:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The object of an encyclopedic list is to be of use to the people consulting it. Am I correct in this observation? If so, are you trying to make the case that the list is *less* useful with the cryonics information in the list? The Wikipedia Humanist list would certainly be more useful as an index if it were anotated as to secular vs religous humanists. Keith Henson 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is not what is useful but what is appropriate in light of Wikipedia guidelines. --Loremaster 17:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding, "One historical measure of committment to transhumanists thinking is that the early ones were mostly signed up for cryonic preservation.": Measured by whom? Certainly not transhumanists, the majority of whom are not cryonicists, and who would certainly object to cyonics being an ideological litmus test. The statement is blatant POV. Furthermore, cryonics is not the only ideology disproportionately associated with early transhumanists. Should the list also put the letter "L" after known libertarian transhumanists? "S" after Singularitarian transhumanists? The list could end up with an alphabet soup of initials denoting interests coincidental, but fundamentally distinct from transhumanism, which is what cryonics is. Cryonics and transhumanism are independent ideas that each has their own constituency and arguments to make. 71.160.248.79 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. This is exactly what I was trying to say. --Loremaster 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

Deletion undone. Surely if some of the names are questionable they should be challenged or removed, not the whole page, many of whom are in fact major names in transhumanism. -- Mindstalk 20:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christians (3rd nomination) (and the one before) and List of anarchists this article has been redirected to Transhumanism. As it is not referenced it violates both WP:V and WP:BLP and should not be restored without sources for every person included on the list, if such an article is necessary at all. violet/riga (t) 00:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PetScan

I generally don't think lists that one can just get out of a category are particularly useful, but if we're going to have one, we might as well add people who belong to subcategories of the main category as well. Here are some for your consideration: --Slashme (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_transhumanists&oldid=906936162"