Natasha Vita-More wrote:
> >What I meant was that the definition used in the FAQ is especially
> >due to these two people (and that is entirely accurate). So I could
> >change it to "The definition used in this FAQ is based...". Would
> >that satisfy you?
>
> Yes.
Ok, I'll do that.
> However, Max's writing on
> transhumanism is indeed separate from what Julian Huxley intention with
> transhuman meaning "man remaining man."
I agree with that. This is how I now see it: Huxley introduced the term, but he used it for a different (though related) concept than the modern one. The concept itself evolved gradually under the influence of many people. Ettinger and FM then came up with definitions of 'transhuman' that are fairly similar to the ones we are using now. Then Max defined, for the first time, the word transhumanism in the modern sense. Subsequently, the definitions of both 'transhuman' and 'transhumanism' have been refined, but their meaning remain basically the ones formulated by Ettinger and FM (for 'transhuman') and by Max (for 'transhumanism').
Would it be adequate if I insert the following sentence in the Cultural antecedents section?
"Max More wrote the first definition of the word 'transhumanism' in its modern sense."
BTW, I can't upload anything to the web server at the moment, so it may take a couple of days before these modifications will appear online.
Nick Bostrom
http://www.hedweb.com/nickb n.bostrom@lse.ac.uk
Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method
London School of Economics