Talk:Democratic transhumanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] About the new section

I don't think theere are enough people openly identifying themselves as democratic transhumanists to be create a section called People active in movement or People associated with movement. However, if this changes a better title would be List of prominent democratic transhumanists --Loremaster 23:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand your position and am inclined to agree. I personally don't feel that this individual person should be identified on this page at all. However, I have been told that his name is continually readded, so I just wanted to get him out of the beginning portion of the article. --Danaman5 23:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who re-added this individual's name on some occasions. From what I am told, he works closely with James Hughes and is probably the only person, other than Hughes, who publicly identifies himself as a democratic transhumanist. Why don't you feel he should be identified on this page at all? --Loremaster 16:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I apologize for seeming to work against your reverts of my edits a moment ago. We simply happened to be editing at the same time. --Danaman5 23:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, there are a few people who consider themselves democratic transhumanists. I will re-add this section with a new title. --Loremaster 16:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I just thought it seemed like vanity if only one person was identified on the page. However, the page looks really great with this new list of Democratic Transhumanists. Nice job. --Danaman5 18:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I doubt it, I can't know whether vanity was the initial reason why this person was identified on the page. However, before I created the new list of democratic transhumanists, I think it would have been odd to not include any mention of this person on this page when he was the only person other than James Hughes to publicly identify himself as a democratic transhumanist. --Loremaster 15:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panocracy

Can you say why you deleted the link to the panocracy article, Loremaster? It seems much closer to the ideals of democratic transhumanism than democratic socialism, for instance. John Talbut 18:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, according to a Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into the main body of the article 2) if something is in the main body, it should not be in See also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections.

That being said, panocracy as a concept or term is never mentioned in James Hughes's writings about democratic transhumanism. I'm removing the mention democratic socialism and transhumanist socialism from the article. --Loremaster 20:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, although neither of the references that I could find to See also seemed to agree with the rule of thumb. It does not seem helpful for a Wikipedia user trying to find information if references to similar items are not included. I came across democratic transhumanism from a reference (under See also) in the article on the Open source movement. I was struck by the similarity between the philosophy of democratic transhumanism and that of panocracy.

Your second point, about things not being mentioned by James Hughes, does not seem to be NPOV.John Talbut 06:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

1. What references are you speaking of? Like I said, good articles have no See also sections. However, there are plenty of bad articles in Wikipedia that do.

2. You are right that, in the interest of a NPOV, that the article should not only contain only concepts and terms used by James Hughes. However, since James Hughes is the philosopher who defined democratic transhumanism, we must be careful not to associate ideas that he may disagree with his philosophy.

3. Panocracy doesn't appear to propose anything novel philosophically or programmatically however that hasn't already been proposed by "participatory democracy." Plus, this is an obscure neologism. It doesn't add anything.

--Loremaster 14:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Citation signal and "See also" line or section of the Help:Section. A search of Wikepedia suggest that some 393000 articles have See also sections.

2. Although panocracy has similarities with participatory democracy, it is philosophically and in practice fundamentally different since it does not rely on the concept of a demos that has a single will.John Talbut 14:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I am well aware that a vast majority of Wikipedia articles have a "See also" section. However, I was refering to the fact that good articles and featured articles usually don't have any because of the reasons I explained above. A few Wikipedia administrators have confirmed this fact. They are currently discussing making this an official guideline.

2. James Hughes has stated that, in general, he thinks people should have the right to participate, but there should not be onerous obligations to participate. He likes Australia's fines for not voting, but he doesn't think we should all have to participate in weekly five hours consensus meetings to govern our block. He thinks workers should have co-ownership and co-management, but most workers do not want to meet to decide every hire, fire and management decision. Delegation is efficient and therefore desirable.

3. Ultimately, why do you believe panocracy is closer to the ideals of democratic transhumanism than social democracy when James Hughes doesn't?

--Loremaster 01:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)