Talk:Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

Active discussions

NotabilityEdit

I think this is notable, because these two founders certainly are. I'm not sure how to handle the complex of multiple x-refs and overlapping articles. Best thing to do may be to reduce it and combine it (into this article, probably), but there are 3rd party sources, so i will remove the prod. DGG 05:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Fields of interestEdit

But: what is the source for the list of fields of interest? Looking carefully at the links, they seem to be selected on the basis of having WP articles. DGG 22:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Although all the IEET Fellows at one point in time have written about the subjects in the Fields of interest section, I replaced this section with a Programs section by summarizing the information found on IEET's programs and activities page. --Loremaster 01:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrye SententiaEdit

Are there any sources for the section on W.S. that has just been added.?DGG 01:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

See her bio here http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/pressroom/wrye_sententia.htm. If you think some of the material in the article is too contentious to be supported by a source associated with her, please specify and we'll see if it can be supported by more neutral sources. However, her (presumably) self-written biography should be an adequate source for most of it. Metamagician3000 02:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
On reflection, I've cut out the following material: She has guided the CCLE in sponsoring the National Science Foundation’s initiatives aimed at "Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance". In 2002, she provided comments to the President's Council on Bioethics on the topic of cognitive enhancement technologies and in October 2004 debated members of the Council on the Democratic Values of the US Declaration of Independence in relation to emergent enhancement biotechnologies and human freedom. She has written and spoken extensively on how novel technologies, particularly neurotechnology, will impact on human freedom. She has appeared frequently on radio and television, and has given invited lectures at numerous universities. I think that any material on those individuals who do not have articles here should be brief and should be sourced in a way that cannot be disputed. (Will put in an appropriate inline citation later; doing a couple of other things at once right now.) Metamagician3000 11:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Good call. --Loremaster 20:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
If you assert a degree, please give the year and the subject so it can be checked. DGG 20:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

biosEdit

I have removed both of the bios on fellows of the center. this is not relevant material to an article on the subject. If they are notable, write articles about them. DGG (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your decision. Since the IEET primarily exist to promote and publicize the work of thinkers who examine the social implications of scientific and technological advance, it makes sense to know more about these fellows by including short bios without having to create articles about them. --Loremaster 23:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
As I recall, it was previously thought that some of these people were not notable enough to have articles of their own right, but it would be appropriate to say something brief about them here. In the cases of those with articles in their own right, there would be a cross-reference to those articles. Obviously that's not a satisfactory solution if the article is left in a half-baked form, but it still makes sense to me in the context of a well-developed article. Metamagician3000 07:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. We should work on completing the Fellows section. Can you help? --Loremaster 11:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

NotabilityEdit

There doesn't appear to be any. The only two things that might be editorially-reviewed RSes (Slate and Reason) mention it only in passing. If this is noteworthy, the evidence needs to be clear in the article - David Gerard (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I added more references. Most of them only mention the Institute or its journal in passing, but this is typical for opinions given by think tank scholars. Please see Category:Think_tanks_based_in_the_United_States to compare this article with other articles on think tanks. These references are relevant for showing the Institute's level of media and pubic exposure, even if the mention is only in passing. Waters.Justin (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Inclusion of trivial in-passing mentions does not help with establishing notability one bit. A few more "meaty" references will do nicely, but this is just clutter. --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it's the sort of thing that unfortunately reads like articles where a non-notable institution has "puffed up" its entry. Such arguments regularly fail at AFD, for example - the press mentions need to be actually about the subject - David Gerard (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Notable members sectionEdit

I created a notable members section, see [1], and a user deleted it due to Wikipedia's prohibition against directories. Creating a notable members section is not a directory and is an accepted Wikipedia practice if the listed members are actually notable. Wikipedia even has a consensus accepted template for building a notable members section. See Template:Member and Template:Mem. Another think tank, the Cato Institute, has a very large notable members section with even subsections. See Cato_Institute#Notable_Cato_experts. And a search of Wikipedia using the phrase "Notable members" gives hundreds of articles with "Notable members" sections. See search [2]. Why should this article not be allowed to create a "Notable members" section if it uses the Wikipedia accepted template or follows the same format at the Cato Institute? Waters.Justin (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"Notable members" sections are also quite useless. If a member has documented activities that are relevant to the institute, that could and should be in the article (and the member could then be wikilinked). If all that can be said is that "John Doe is a member", then it just is name-dropping and notability is not inherited, so it doesn't improve the article in any measurable way. --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
"Notable members" sections aren't, in the general case, actually useful information, and often come across like trying to make notability arguments in the article text rather than on the talk page. Is this organisation notable enough to rate a mention in each and every of those listed BLPs, for instance? I strongly suspect not - David Gerard (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

What to do with these?Edit

That's the curious thing about the folks at the Stanford conference. Some were from the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, an offshoot of the World Transhumanist Association, which advocates the transformation of our species through drugs, "genetic engineering, information technology ... nanotechnology, machine intelligence, uploading, and space colonization." [...] These are weird people with weird ideas. But sometimes it takes a weirdo to see what's odd about what the rest of us call normal. [...] Maybe the cockeyed thinking of transhumanists is what allows them to see the illogic of the way we dope kids with caffeine while banning other stimulants. Maybe that's why they find it odd that we denounce steroids as cheating but ignore athletes who get Lasik or muscle-enhancing surgery. Maybe that's why they look back at the doubling of human life expectancy in the last century and wonder why we shouldn't try to double it again. To our hunter-gatherer ancestors, they figure, we already look posthuman. Meanwhile, they look at cyborg technology and see in it what's human.

— Slate.com national correspondent William Saletan, [1]

The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies has become in my view, and possibly always was, a stealthy organization seeking to help legitimize the institutional positions and media reputations of key members of the World Transhumanist Organization, the better to increase membership and funding for that and other transhumanists organizations, as well as to mainstream the specific assertions of belief shared by those who identify as "transhumanists" in particular, under cover of a more serious discourse about emerging technoscientific change more generally. There is nothing wrong with such an agenda (even if I don't personally agree with it), although it seems to me that for the same reasons that the WTA website is not likely to achieve, in its explicit transhumanist form, either mainstream or academic respectability any time soon, neither would IEET were its apparently insistent connection to the WTA better known.

— Former IEET Human Rights Fellow Dale Carrico, [2]

These quotes are too long and just stuck at the bottom of the article without context. Not sure what to do with them. Darx9url (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The following was also removed, but it might be worth picking through the sources to see if there is anything specifically descriptive of the organization:

The Institute, or its academic journal, has been mentioned by CNBC,[3] the New York Times,[4][5][6] BBC,[7] CoinDesk,[8] the Christian Science Monitor,[9] and Huffington Post,[10] the Atlantic,[11] io9,[12] Forbes,[13] the Boston Globe,[14] Scientific American,[15] Discover magazine,[16]The Wall Street Journal,[17] and Slate magazine[18]

Cheers! bd2412 T 21:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
As a result of the removal of these references and a COI check on me that came up negative, I removed the COI and cleanup template. I removed the following templates: (cleanup|reason=References need to be checked: some don't even mention the institute or only in-passing|date=December 2014)(COI|date=March 2015). I don't have a COI with the subject of this article. A possible COI was reviewed by a COI admin on my talk page, and the result was that I don't have a COI. Even if I did have a COI, the majority of my edits were removed. Waters.Justin (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

ReferencesEdit

I have restored the cleanup tag. Just as an example, the current reference 6, is only an in-passing mention of the institute and does not support the statement made in the preceding phrase. --Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 November 2016Edit

Add "index | Technoprogressive Wiki". ieet.org. Retrieved 23 November 2016. — God's Godzilla 22:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There is already an external link to the home page, and that is sufficient. Visitors can find their way to the Technoprogressive Wiki from there. Altamel (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Among the Transhumanists: Cyborgs, self-mutilators, and the future of our race., Sunday, June 4, 2006
  2. ^ Unperson, Sunday, March 16, 2008
  3. ^ Cadie Thompson, Why living off the grid will get a lot easier in 25 years, CNBC, (Nov. 27, 2014).
  4. ^ Abby Ellin, The Golden Years, Polished With Surgery, New York Times, (Aug. 8, 2011).
  5. ^ The Darwinian Ethics of a Facelift New York Times, (Aug. 4, 2009).
  6. ^ Ashlee Vance, Merely Human? That’s So Yesterday, New York Times, (June 12, 2010).
  7. ^ Tim Maughan, Should we engineer animals to be smart like humans? BBC Future (Oct. 1, 2014).
  8. ^ Nermin Hajdarbegovic,Think Tank: Blockchain Could be 'Economic Layer' for the Web, CoinDesk, (Nov. 11, 2014).
  9. ^ Harry Bruinius, Facebook's secret experiment on users had a touch of 'Inception' (+video), Christian Science Monitor (June 30, 2014).
  10. ^ Zoltan Istvan, I'm an Atheist, Therefore I'm a Transhumanist, Huffington Post, (Dec. 5, 2013).
  11. ^ James Hamblin, Cheating Death and Being Okay With God, The Atlantic, (Aug. 6, 2013).
  12. ^ George Dvorsky, Should we upgrade the intelligence of animals?, io9, (Sept. 17, 2012).
  13. ^ Jon Entine, Frankenstein's Cat: New Book Shines Light on the 'Brave New World' of GMO Animals, Forbes, (March 21, 2013).
  14. ^ Should we make animals smarter?, The Boston Globe, (March 31, 2013).
  15. ^ Robin Marantz Henig and Samantha Henig, Does Continual Googling Really Make You Stupid? [Excerpt], (Jan 11, 2013).
  16. ^ Kyle Munkittrick, Defending the World's Most Dangerous Idea, Discover, (Sept. 24, 2010).
  17. ^ Jamais Cascio,It's Time to Cool the Planet, The Wall Street Journal, (June 15, 2009).
  18. ^ Torie Bosch, Think Faster, Slate, (Aug. 4, 2014).
Return to "Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies" page.