Difference between revisions of "Talk:Transhumanism"
(→Merge in LessWrongWiki article: new section)
(→Merge in LessWrongWiki article)
|Line 25:||Line 25:|
== Merge in LessWrongWiki article ==
== Merge in LessWrongWiki article ==
The LessWrongWiki Transhumanism article is substantially less well-developed than this article. Accordingly, I oppose merging it in. [[User:AABoyles|AABoyles]] ([[User talk:AABoyles|talk]]) 10:45, 19 July 2018 (CDT)
The LessWrongWiki Transhumanism articleis substantially less well-developed than this article. Accordingly, I oppose merging it in. [[User:AABoyles|AABoyles]] ([[User talk:AABoyles|talk]]) 10:45, 19 July 2018 (CDT)
Latest revision as of 10:45, 19 July 2018
Arguments in favour of transhumanism
I've removed, for now, the following section about Noam Chomsky. Although it contains an important quote, I don't see it as advocacy for transhumanism. (Instead, it's advocacy for pursuing "community interests".) --David W. Wood (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2016 (CDT)
Noam Chomsky's 1992 argument for human survival
In the following Quote, Chomsky argues that humans will destroy themselves if they continue to pursue individual material gain as opposed to community interests.Modern industrial civilization has developed within a system of convenient myths. The driving force has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy, on grounds that private vices yield public benefits in the classic formulation. It has long been understood very well that a society based on this principal will destroy itself in time. It can only persist with whatever suffering and injustice it entails as long as it is possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource and that the world is an infinite garbage can. At this stage in history one of two things is possible. Either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests guided by values of solidarity, sympathy and concern for others or alternatively there will be no destiny for anyone to control. As long as some specialized class is in a position of authority, it is going to set policy for the special interests that it serves. But the conditions of survival let alone justice require rational social planning in the interests of the community as a whole and by now that means the global community. The question is whether privileged elites should dominate mass communication and should use this power as they tell us they must, namely to impose necessary illusions to manipulate and deceive the “stupid majority” and remove them from the public arena. The question in brief is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided. In this possibly terminal phase of human existence democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasured, they may well be essential to survival.
I've also moved the section about Marshall Brain's thinking further down the article, since it makes no explicit reference to transhumanism.
The content of this page is mostly made of quotations, and it has self-reference in the introduction – both of these traits seem quite out of place. I suggest that we summarize the information in an encyclopedic style, perhaps moving the quotations to a separate page. It seems especially important for this page to be well-written, because it covers the most central topic of the wiki. Does anyone agree? Does anyone disagree? –Haptic-feedback (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2016 (CST)
- Go for it. Consider moving some quotes out to the imported quotes page too Deku-shrub (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2016 (CST)
Public views of transhumanism