Talk:Bioconservatism/Archive 1

Previous deletion debate

Anonymously created. Very few Google hits on the word. This looks at least perilously close to a neologism.

The author's creating a link from conservatism looks to me like a further strike against my trusting this: not obviously relevant, suggests pushing an agenda.

Just created, so I'll give a week or so for someone to add some some substance and (more importantly) some decent citations before I propose it for deletion. Others may be less generous. -- Jmabel 21:20, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Since Oct 2004, some substance was added to the article. Deletion is unwarranted. Loremaster 11:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bioluddism

• "A reactionary is sometimes described as an extreme conservative, but whereas a conservative seeks, in the simplest terms, to preserve the status quo, a reactionary seeks to return to the situation of a prior time." Luddites and bioluddites are reactionaries. Loremaster 11:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which does not change the fact that it is usually a pejorative word, that should be used with extreme caution in an NPOV context. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:58, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree but the use of this word is perfectly justified in this context. Loremaster 6 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)

On what basis are you defending the use of a pejorative? How is this NPOV? -- Jmabel | Talk July 7, 2005 21:36 (UTC)

Because 1) the word is not necessarily pejorative; 2) I wasn't my intent to be pejorative when using this word, and 3) it accurately describes the stance I am qualifying. Loremaster 8 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

To me the use of the word makes it look like a criticism of Bioluddism, but then, I'd read the word "conservative" as a criticism. "Reactionary" always conjures up images of clueless, over-the-top Daily Mail headlines for me. Joe D (t) 8 July 2005 23:25 (UTC)

Reviewing the different dictionary definitions of 'reactionary', it does seem to simply refer to 'extreme conservatism.' Luddism seems to be a fairly common stance though, especially among the religious right in the US, for example, so I'm not sure if it is neutral to say it's extreme.--Nectarflowed ^T 8 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)

The issue is not our personal perception of a word but whether its defition accurately describes the suject that it is qualifying. No one has been able to refute the fact that luddism and bioluddism are reactionary stances. Loremaster 9 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)

My point was that a view is not generally considered 'extreme' if it is widely held.--Nectarflowed ^T 9 July 2005 01:37 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of members of the American religious right is bioconservative. Only a minority can be accurately described as bioluddite. That's the point the article is trying to make... Loremaster 9 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be trying to "make a point". Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:10, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* I didn't mean it like that. I was simply arguing that the article is clarifiying the confusion there is surrounding the terms bioconservative and bioluddite. Loremaster 16:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be clarifying to rephrase this observation as something like: "Bioconservative skepticism and cautiousness toward biomedical and other particular technological developments often is, but need not always be, part of a more generalized technophobic perspective or technological critique. BioLuddism represents a more radical and sweeping anti-technological perspective." I would hope this eliminates the sense of pre-emptive judgment that may seem to be found in the terms "extreme" or "reactionary" in the present version -- and I also think most actual "BioLuddites" would not be averse to this characterization themselves -- always a plus if clarity is what is wanted, rather than activism! (anon 11 Aug 2005)

Very good. I've added a version of your text to the article. I hope this settles this minor dispute once and for all. Loremaster 19:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to simplify the language a little (eg, replaced "generalized" with "general") for the new version. I was the one who made the suggestion you've taken up, but I have to admit it was rather off the top of my head. Btw, I didn't mean to be "anon." -- this is Dale Carrico

Conservatism?

On what basis is this placed in Category:Conservatism, which is about political conservatism? This is not at all specifically a politically conservative stance, despite the name. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Read the Biopolitics article. Loremaster 02:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel may be right. The "conservatism" template may be even more out of place. -Willmcw 05:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Read the bioconservatism and biopolitics article again. Loremaster 16:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's the second sentence of this article:

• Whether arising from a conventionally right-leaning politics of religious/cultural conservatism or from a conventionally left-leaning politics of environmentalism, bioconservative positions oppose medical and other technological interventions into what are broadly perceived as current human and cultural limits in the name of a defense of "the natural" deployed as a moral category.

That makes it clear that this is not part of the conventional political conservatism. I'd say it belongs in a category related to bio-ethics (which we may need to create). I'm removing the tempalte and category. -Willmcw 20:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The second sentence is exactly the reason why bioconservatism is part of the conventional political conservatism. Please explain why it isn't. Loremaster 21:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Because it says that it comes from both the right and the left, and it says that it deals with "medical and other technological interventions", but doesn't mention politics or elections. -Willmcw 21:36, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm completely in agreement with Willmcw here. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:07, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Whether arising from a conventionally right-leaning politics of religious/cultural conservatism or from a conventionally left-leaning politics of environmentalism, bioconservative positions oppose medical and other technological interventions into what are broadly perceived as current human and cultural limits in the name of a defense of "the natural" deployed as a moral category. Regardless, I guess I will have to eventually get around expanding the article by explaining how bioconservatism and technoprogressivism are two stances on the biopolitical axis of the political spectrum. Loremaster 01:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems like the argument for it being political is that it's involved in policy and politics (e.g. embryonic stem cell research), and regarding whether or not it can be classified as politically conservative, it appears to meet the definition of conservative (conservative with a little 'c,' not a big 'c,' which would refer to conservative political parties):

2. "a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change"

3. "the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change"

Maybe the article should be in both the bioethics and conservatism categories.--Nectar ^T 01:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• category:conservatism is about political conservatism, not "conservatism" in some other sense. It wouldn't be the place to talk about a "conservative" investing or military strategy, either. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Despite the fact that we removed bioconservatism from Category:Conservatism a long time ago, I don't think this dispute is settled. --Loremaster 23:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

These people are obviously the same kind of people who are of the opinion that abortion is 'unnatural', and by that fact, you could say it's related to U.S conservatism. Joffeloff 18:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct but the point is that the Category:Conservatism page encompasses more than just US Conservatism and should therefore relect that by including a mention of bioconservatism. --Loremaster 20:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added Biconservatism to the Category:Conservatism page. --Loremaster 00:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent change to lead reverted

Current lead begins:

Bioconservatism is a stance of hesitancy about technological development in general and strong opposition to the genetic, prosthetic and cognitive modification of human beings in particular.

It was anonymously changed to:

Bioconservatism is a stance of hesitancy about biotechnological development and support for a social order. Strong bioconservative positions include opposition to the genetic, prosthetic and cognitive modification of human beings in particular, whether it be consensual or coerced.

Other than the change of "technology" to "biotechnology", I found this very confusing and have reverted. I have no idea what "and support for a social order" is supposed to refer to in this context. Similarly "whether it be consensual or coerced": I would presume that far and away most people would be opposed to coerced modification of human beings, so saying that doesn't seem to add much. If you think I'm missing something here, please explain, and I'll gladly help work on getting anything substantive and appropriate into the article on a coherent basis. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Noted. I've edited the intro to reflect some of your comments. --Loremaster 23:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Contentious link

It seems to me that linking "the natural" in the article to Naturalistic fallacy is polemical and violates NPOV.

I would suggest that this be removed. Unless someone makes a strong case to the contrary in the next day or so, I will do so myself. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have linked Natural environment instead. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

List of names

The Kevin Fitzgerald linked to here is not the Kevin T. FitzGerald described, about whom there does not seem to be an article. StN 19:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Noted. --Loremaster 19:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition

Bioconservatism (a portmanteau word combining "biology" and "conservatism"), is a stance of hesitancy about technological development especially if it is perceived to threaten a social order. --The one-sentence definition of bioconservatism in this article is insufficient. This sentence doesn't define bioconservatism, it much more closely defines something along the lines of "technophobia." Gcolive 21:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. However, since the definition of bioconservatism used to be a one paragrah but it was later divided into the 3 seperate sentences you see now, I am restoring the original version. --Loremaster 00:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting bioconservatism

I don't think "resistence to the commercially driven commodification of life" is in fact shared by all bioconservatives. Certainly not *all* religious or social bioconservatives share this critique (bioconservative hostility to ARTs and bodymod and queersex is rarely if ever really driven by such commodification critiques, for example) and saying so, especially saying this is "a unifying perspective," is to rewrite bioconservatism as entirely a left-perspective, which is actively misleading *and VERY interesting* and pretty smart of them, too. --Dale Carrico

I agree. I'm editing the article to reflect this criticism. --Loremaster 13:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A section on the critiques and/or critics of bio-conservatism be helpful.

I agree. --Loremaster 13:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)