Talk:Human enhancement/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

This page is an Archive of the discussions from Human enhancement talk page (Discussion page). (2006 - 2009) - Please Do not edit!

More References Needed

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This article badly needs references to support its various claims. Those references may also provide ideas for mre information to include in the article. It is my feeling tha this article, in its current form, risks being put up for deletion (although not by me, of course). --Ben Houston 18:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would suggest deleting the Human enhancement article. There are 23,000,000 Google search hits for the term human enhancement. This article has over 35 Wikipedia articles linking to it. Both government, corporations and non-profit organizations have produced research on the subject. We simply need to analyze and summarize the information provided in the existing References and External links sections of the article to provide references to the various claims. --Loremaster 19:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If I put quotes around "human enhancement" I only get 96,000 hits through Google. But, yes, we just need to polish up the article. --Ben Houston 19:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Loremaster 19:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've finished polishing the Human Enhancement article. The only thing left is to improve the Human enhancement technologies section perhaps by seperating them into three groups: 1) Existing, 2) Emerging, and 3) Speculative. Also, another thing that we need to work on is the fact that some of the technologies currently mentioned are specific techniques while others are general categories. --Loremaster 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Loremaster that the Technologies section would be improved if it were edited to contain sub-sections on: Existing, Emerging and Speculative technologies. I'll try and have a go although I'm pretty short on written reference material regarding this subject that is WP:V rather that just speculative. Nk.sheridan Talk 22:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Constructive Criticism

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

One issue is that most technology can be considered to be augmentative. For example you list antidepressants but I would suggestion that all psychoactive medication is augmentative -- anti-psychotics are at least as augmentative for those with schizophrenia as anti-depressants are for those that are depressed. But then taking it further most medication is augmentative. Fertility medication sure helps those with infertility. Even anti-cholesterol drugs are augmentative in extending life (via the avoidance of heart disease.) It is difficult to know when to stop. Are eye glasses / contacts considered augmentative or not? What about my winter jacket or my soccer cleats? We are already functionally augmented beings and have been since animals started to use primitive tools or use the environment as a shelter. This take on things is a serious threat to this article's viability in my opinion -- it would be best if we could preemptively address it. --Ben Houston 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Although this is a legitimate issue that could be addressed in the article, the subjectivity of term 'human enhancement' is not a reason to delete this article otherwise 1/4 of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted. Futhermore, I fail to see why someone would propose deleting this article due to the reasons I already offered: 1) there are 96,000 Google search hits for the term; 2) this article has over 35 Wikipedia articles linking to it; and 3) respected academics working for governmental and non-governemntal organizations have produced research on the subject in which they explicitly used the term. --Loremaster 21:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To answer all your specific questions, I think you need to understand the debate over "therapy" versus "enhancement". Of course it could be argued that all these technologies are "augmentative" but that would be missing the point. The issue, as the introduction of the article now explains, is whether or not a technology is being used for non-therapeutic purposes. --Loremaster 22:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is much better now, but still has 2 problems:

1) It is still too unbalanced. Enhancement is a controvorsial subject with many important arguments on both sides (transhumanism/bio-conservatism). The bio-conservative side should be treated more balanced here. I miss several arguments against enhancement (e.g. medicalization, authenticiy) in the "criticisms" section. In the related Transhumanism page this is handled better.

2) It must be made clear that many HETs are very speculative (like Nanobots), others will certainly be availible in the next years or decades (gene therapy), and some already in use (Neuroenhacemnt through Procak or Ritalin, plastic surgery, Doping). Second-Order-Observer 22:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I'll work on adding a bioconservative critique of transhumanism in the overview section, the article isn't unbalanced as much as it still is a stub.
I agree we need to create subsections which distinguish existing, emerging and speculative HETs.

--Loremaster 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the technologies section should come before the ethics section in this article. Any readers whom are laymen regarding this subject would surely wish to be aware of what is involved before they read of ethics? I've been bold! Nk.sheridan Talk 23:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. --Loremaster (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, Mind uploading is what I was looking for! Nk.sheridan Talk 00:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Other crits

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I added the religious/"unnatural" arguement as I understand it, but since I don't really understand it, can anyone who does please try to state it more clearly. Noclevername 20:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it for now but replaced with a mini see also. --Loremaster 20:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Loaded?

Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

I still don't understand the argument that calls enhancement a loaded or ableist concept; the article referred to merely put quotes around "enhancement" and made a lot of snarky comments, but did not really clarify its position. And how exactly is wanting to improve human ability "ableist"? We all have our limitations; wanting to go beyond them is not any kind of discrimination. I just don't understand. Can anyone make it clearer? Noclevername 20:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with a particular criticism doesn't mean that the article should not present it in order to remain neutral. By the way, perhaps you would benefit from taking the time to read the essays and books written by critics of transhumanism and human enhancement before rejecting them out of hand. --Loremaster 20:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh??? Are you drunk? I have NOT rejected anything, I have asked for a clarification of a point I don't understand. Perhaps you should actually read comments before givng a knee-jerk defensive reaction "out of hand". Noclevername 04:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please respect the guidelines of the talk page listed at the top. That being said, I did read your comments (as well as your edits of the Transhumanism articles) and I've found the language you use to ask for clarification conveyed the impression that you reject some criticisms out of hand. If I am wrong, I apologize. However, since you confess to not understanding these criticisms, it is quite fair of me to suggest that you read the essays and books of critics of human enhancement because a Wikipedia talk page like this one is to discuss changes to an article not provide you with clarifications. --Loremaster 16:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I ask that the content of the article be made clearer. The present summary does not give its reasons for labeling the concept as "loaded" or "ableist". I am asking for an explanation of said viewpoint. P.S. The place to discuss my edits to another page is on that page, not here. This Talk page is for discussing the Human Enhancement article. P.P.S. Do not make assumptions about my viewpoint based on the Transhumanism article. I simply made a request that this article be made more informative, which is the purpose of Talk pages. Noclevername

Fair enough. I've deleted the sentence you are disputing. --Loremaster 22:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I never disputed the sentence, merely asked to have its content explained. Noclevername

Whatever. I've decided to delete the sentence which I wrote in the first place. That being said, the explainations to sentences you don't understand can often be found by actually reading the cited sources at the end of these sentences. --Loremaster 23:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've cited a source for the claim that "enhancement" is a loaded and controversial term. Moving on. --Loremaster 23:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a signifigant issue, too important to be swept under the rug so quickly. The source in question is an opinion piece and gives no rational information (see Exceptional claims). To label something as controversial (particularly in the opening description) requires an explanation of the controversy. Enhancement simply means improvement from one's current state; education, for instance, is a form of enhancement. As each individual is capable of enhancing oneself without affecting others, the "controversy" seems limited to a small minority of opinions.
NOTE: Any replies to comments should be addressed to this page, not to my personal talk page. Noclevername 15:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that a better source can be found, there is substantial quantity of literature written by academics and activists critical of human enhancement, many of whom critical of the expression itself. Most of this literature is mentioned and linked to in the Transhumanism article. Have you read any of it? --Loremaster 02:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you've got some better sources, by all means cite them. The more you can inform the reader, the better and more encyclopedic the entire article becomes. I would recommend, however, moving the "loaded" and "controversial" descriptions down to the Criticism section. Having them begin the article may give a biased appearance, especially to a first-time reader who is unfamiliar with the material. I do think, though, that a clearer definition of just why this usage is considered loaded should be included (that there's controversy I have no doubt, there's nothing these days that doesn't have some), and I'm not familiar enough with all the viewpoints in question to do so myself (even if I had time). Thanks -- Noclevername 08:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I will look for a better source. However, I strongly disagree with moving the words "loaded" and "controversial" down to the Criticism section since anyone familiar with the ethical debates surrounding the term and concept of "human enhancement" knows that the term is loaded and controversial. This is something that the reader should know from the outset. --Loremaster 17:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, describe how, rather than move them. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate the reader, and this is a perfect opportunity for you to do so by presenting your views. What would you tell someone who is not familiar with Human Enhancement when they ask why you call it a loaded term? (It seems fairly straightforward to me, but I'm no expert.) Noclevername 23:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? The expression "human enhancement" has eugenic overtones/connotations and evoke strongly negative reactions far beyond the specific meaning of the expression (which is listed in the dictionary) because it implies that "unenhanced" people are born "limited" or need to be "improved" or are "inferior" to people who have been "enhanced". This notion is highly offensive to people especially the disabled who may be coerced in "enhancing" themselves. --Loremaster 13:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Noclevername on not having these statements in the first sentence. You should define the term first before adding any opinion on its overtones or connotations. However, I don't think it would have to be moved to the criticism section. Even moving it to the second sentence would be better in my view. "Human enhancement is a term referring to any attempt, whether temporary or permanent, to overcome the current limitations of the human body, whether through natural or artificial means. The term, often considered loaded and controversial,[1] is sometimes applied to the use of technological means to select or alter human..." Morphh ^(talk) 13:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that. Done. --Loremaster 16:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I've decided to remove the words "loaded" and "controversial" from the lead. --Loremaster 23:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

who cares about the disabled? they should not be alive to begin whit. improving the human body is a good thing as long as you know what you are doing.... and there will always be someone who is better then you at something geneticly moded or not.

A lot of people care about the disabled. And so you are saying you would kill yourself if you were disabled? Your insulting a LOT of people here. Including my father and mother. And improving the human body IS good.

I agree with you on 2 parts and I think the first part is just plain rude. Also not to be rude or anything but fix your grammar. It sucks. HaloReachAddict (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Reworded

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Okay, I've reworded the sentence to sound a little more NPOV while still maintaining the same content. If you can suggest a better phrasing, please do so. Noclevername 23:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've rephrased it better. --Loremaster 16:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks-- Noclevername 01:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me

Latest comment: 17 years ago19 comments2 people in discussion

"Eugenic overtones?" Huh?? Human enhancement means human beings enhancing themselves, nothing more. I've never heard any of these "strong responses" from people whom I've discussed it with. Some have said they would not choose to do so or thought it unwise, but no one was angry or offended. And yes, everyone does have limitations. There are things you can do that I can't, and vice versa, and things none of us can do-- yet. Overcoming limitations is part of what life is about. As for it meaning that someone is "inferior"... well, I have no idea where that came from, to me enhancement just means individuals becoming better than they currently are. Unnecessary comparisons to others seem quite prejudicial and really should play no part. Likewise, coercion should definitely not be involved. If someone actually tries to prevent someone else from improving him- or herself just because they don't feel comfortable with their own situation, that seems more like a personal matter that should be worked out with the help of a therapist than something that belongs in an encyclopedia entry.

I'm not trying to offend here. But the idea that something meant to help people could be so misunderstood and maligned just boggles my mind. Noclevername 02:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S., I think this is the kind of information that you should put in the article TO AVOID EXACTLY THIS KIND OF MISUNDERSTANDING-- the fact that some people apparently connect HE with other, less positive ideas such as Eugenics needs to be made clear in context. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to inform the reader about the subject, and that seems a rather glaring omission. I think I understand a little better now why you were so-- er, forceful, you thought I was advocating some forced breeding scheme for Nazi Supermen or something. No, I mean human (person) enhancement in the literal sense, not "human-race enhancement" or whatever the term for that sort of thing is-- the opportunity to better myself, and to allow others the chance to as well. I know I'd love to get enhancements to my eyes (and brain!) to let them work better. My aunt has been in a wheelchair for years, she has told me that a pair of cybernetic legs ("she said "bionic", like the TV show) would make her life much easier. One of the whole points of human enhancement is to give people the chance not to have disabilities anymore!

*sigh* Noclevername, I was being "forceful" (not because of what I think you are personally advocating but) because of the fact that, unlike you, I am aware of the controversy surrounding human enhancement as a term, concept and practice. Do yourself a favor and read the many articles, essays and books written by critics of human enhancement and transhumanism. That being said, I've slightly improved and expanded the criticism section to explain why human enhancement is a loaded and controversial term. --Loremaster 22:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Loremaster, it doesn't matter what I think of the subject. The purpose of this article is to teach readers about the subject of HE, and constantly saying "You can't understand unless you've read all the literature" undermines that ideal. Saying that a statement should be accepted "Because he says so" is no more encyclopedic than "Because I say so". If you are more aware of the controversy, then you are the logical choice to help make others more aware as well by adding that information to the encyclopedia article. Don't waste that opportunity! Inform us poor ignorant peons! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noclevername (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Since you seem to be only person unable to grasp simple concepts, I don't see why I should be pending backwards to dumb down the article by making it less consise. As I said before, all the criticsms of human enhancment are are comprensively presented and refuted in the criticisms section of the Transhumanism article. The Human enhancement article links to it so I don't see the point of repeating the same information here. --Loremaster 17:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S., You have also utterly failed to acknowledge any of the points I've brought up. Sighing, rolling one's eyes and acting superior simply because you've studied the subject and I haven't does not in any way make your views seem more valid. We don't all have the copious free time needed to become experts on a subject. If you want this article to be informative, then use reason and fact. Noclevername 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your points are ridiculous which is why I didn't and won't acknowledge them. That being said, the criticism section of this article have been slighty improved so I see this dispute as settled. --Loremaster 20:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the old "I disagree and therefore must belittle you" line of reasoning. Classy. Your smug attitude is what need to be improved, or at least you need to spend some time studying the rules of common courtesy. Noclevername 00:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of belittleing you. You stated several times that you don't understand simple concepts. You seem to have not read the sources cited in the article that would help you understand these concepts better. I've improved (rather than dumbed down) the article in response to some of your comments. As for the rest, I am not going to waste my time responding to what I consider ridiculous points. If you think this lacks courtesy, I don't give a damn. I am not here to make you feel good. I'm too busy raising the quality of Wikipedia articles to Good Article status, which I have succeeded in doing several times. --Loremaster 17:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Loremaster, your unbelievably rude and inappropriate comments have once again been reported. I may not be able to understand your inadequately explained assertions, but at least I grasp the simple concept of civility. Having helped win a few awards does not put you above the rules of decent behavior. Just as asking for clarification of a poorly articulated point does not imply "dumbing down". Making the articles clearer and more informative to the average reader, not meeting the minimum standards to be categorized as "good" or "featured", should be every editor's goal. Noclevername 00:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Report me as many times as you like. --Loremaster 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What, precisely, do you think is "ridiculous" about any of the suggestions I've made? Be specific. Noclevername 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Minsinterpret the following sentence however you want: I am no longer interested in discussing anything with you. Discuss changes to Human enhancement article or move on. --Loremaster 22:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am. I am discussing suggestion that I have made about the article, and why you have rejected them out of hand. Please inform me of what you feel is wrong with them. Noclevername 23:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've rejected your suggestions because they were based on your ignorance of the debates surrounding human enhancement, transhumanism and eugenics but I don't have the time to educate you especially when the article by Dale Carrico explains it all. I've improved the article to address your concerns the best that I could, and that is all I am prepared to do. --Loremaster 00:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions are based on making this article more informative and accessable, nothing more. You claim that you want a consensus; well, that involves discussion. You seem to think that you are the only one who can determine what edits can be made. If you don't want to improve the article, fine; stand back and let others do so. Nothing is written in stone here. And Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. (This includes old writing and new, including articles which have been Featured). “Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” Antoine de Saint-Exupery ---Noclevername 01:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to not understand what I am trying to say: Unlike Transhumanism which is a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article, Human enhancement is far from that status so I am more than open to it neing mercilessly edited by myself and others. So NOW that I have improved the article based on some of your suggestions, what do you wish to change, or more specifically, add? I'm all ears. --Loremaster 16:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, I continue to improve the article in order to make more informative and accessable. What information do you think it is currently lacking or that needs to be "dumbed down"? --Loremaster 18:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Loremaster, the changes you have made do improve the article. Again, however, clarity is not "dumbing down", it's just good editing. The place for discussing improvements to the Transhumanism article is on the Talk page of that article. Noclevername 22:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

uh, I'm not discussing improvements to the Transhumanism article. I'm simply illustrating a point. --Loremaster 23:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

About "See also" sections

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"See also" are a list, lists are worse then text. Wiki is not paper, we should have room to discuss all related issues, and "See also", which rarely discuss the linked items, give little indication why they are relevant. According to some Wikipedia administrators: 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 (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Good points, I didn't think the link was particularly pertinent to the topic myself, however did not wish to remove it completely to try and stay objective. I understand your points, and wikipedias, however. Thanks! Der.Gray (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we understand each other. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)