Talk:Bioconservatism

LSE project

We'll be working on this page on 29/01/19 as part of a class project for the London School of Economics course "Genes, Brains and Society". J.birch2 (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: at this stage, adding of more citations is crucial so that the warnings on the page can be removed. All claims must be attributable to a source. We'll continue working on this until 12 Feb. J.birch2 (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The project wraps up on 29 April, but all participants are welcome to carry on editing. J.birch2 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Page needs independent sources for Kass's, Sandel's and Bostrum's arguments

I've got no way of knowing how these quotes and statements about their arguments were chosen. They may be excellent choices but they are editors' choices. We need analyses of their views from reliable secondary sources. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree; I will add some more sources myself if others on the project don't manage to do so. J.birch2 (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Nick Bostrom citations unduly repeated

Can someone help with that? Several citations point to the same article, in fact, the same url of the same article. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hans Jonas’s Position

While I have not read everything Jonas wrote, him being cast as a critic of bio conservatism is deeply implausible. His arguments within his essay “The Practical Uses of Theory” are centered around his worries that scientific advancements are inclined to treat human beings as mere objects even in the name of improving them. There is also a lecture of his available online where he discusses the possibility of the biological sciences finally “revolutionizing” humanity itself before philosophy had the possibility to come to terms with the ramifications of these potential changes.

For more information on this, one could read his imperative of responsibility, where he proposes an ethical imperative centered around the continued existence of human life worthy of still being called human, and directly states that the most resounding condemnation from future generations would be that they would not even recognize the need to condemn us over what we have done to them.

Beyond the Hans Jonas section having no sources for this alleged argument of his, even if he did make that specific argument, it still does not make sense to cast him as a critic of bioconservatism generally. If anything he is a bioconservative himself, and in fact he influenced Kass, who is cited in this article as a bioconservative.

I would recommend the Jonas section be removed entirely. At the moment it does more harm than good. 173.49.1.37 (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Article needs expansion

This article is underdeveloped relative to the scope of the topic. For comparison, the Transhumanism article is extensively sourced, to which this article lacks comparable depth.

A few specific issues:

1: The introduction's final paragraph is entirely devoted to critics, which gives undue weight to opposition in what should be a neutral overview of the subject. The criticism section should be its own section further down.

2: Several claims are unsourced. Works by Fukuyama, Habermas, Kass and Sandel could easily support these.

3: There is no section on the legal/policy dimension such as the Oviedo Convention and national bans on germline editing.

4: No mention of religious bioethical perspectives (Islamic, Catholic, Orthodox, etc) which represents a big part of bioconservative thought globally.

I'm willing to work on expanding this if other editors are interested in collaborating. QutaKoo (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2026 (UTC)