634:), and articles on unrelated things with "Progress" in their name, but there is no article on progress as a general concept or idea. We need one, and it is as far as I can tell an inherently social or historical idea, just as the idea of rights is an inherently political or ethical idea. If there are different approaches to the concept of progress -- e.g. if sociologists, anthropologists, historians, etc, each have their own different senses of "progress" -- then perhaps several more specific articles are warranted, with titles like the current title of this page. But even then, we still need something on the concept or idea of Progress in general, and it seems most sensible to me that it would be titled just "Progress". At an article "Idea of Progress" (capitalized as such), I would expect to find a history of the usage of that phrase in particular, which I'm not sure warrants an article of its own beyond an article on the concept the phrase refers to. --
967:
changes in social structures could or would improve society, which is about social progress in abstract, not about technological progress causing social progress. Likewise the section on
Antiquity says nothing about technology improving society, but more about whether things are generally getting better or worse or moving in cycles, i.e. questions of progress in abstract, not this more particular "Idea of Progress" theory. Even in the section on Enlightment, only the first two paragraphs say anything about technology; the latter two are more about defining Progress in abstract, e.g. "Adam Ferguson defined human progress as the working out of a divine plan". The section "Modernization" is largely about technology improving society, except for the "Status of Women" subsection, which is just about improvement in women's social status over time (i.e. social progress for women), nothing about whether that has any relation to technology.
449:
However, this doesn't mean that we don't have enough sources to justify an entry that deals specifically with the expression "myth of progress". In keeping with this recent task of organizing the information on progress in the article, and in respect with the standards of
Knowledge, we would just need to put a "main" our "see also" template at the top of the criticism section in this article, directing to the article on the expression. There is nothing strange about having an article written about an expression, as long as backed by the proper sources (see
866:
have been progressive changes in, e.g., social structures, scientific theories, philosophical theories, economic structures, etc, throughout history. I would think that the "Status of Women" section would belong best as one of those sections: it is about how/whether there has been progressive changes in the social status of women throughout history. (Though honestly, I think both it and the
Economics section are properly subsets of
22:
71:
53:
1323:
However, he updates the ideal of progress by considering the implications of possible 21st century advances in technology. Are there any other thinkers and/or intellectual trends that might contribute to a sub-section (perhaps placed after the "Enlightenment" section in the chronological overview?) that details current manifestations of "progressive" thought?
81:
155:
137:
165:
975:(which would be summarized and main'd from here). The purpose of my proposed merger to here was to consolidate material into an article on progress in general, not one on such a specific theory of how progress in one area related to progress in another; so if that is the intended scope of the article that was at
728:
almost completely redundant with what you propose should be listed as "Idea of
Progress". If we had an article on "Progress" and it at some point grew too large to be a single article, then I would agree that it should be split off into smaller sub-articles, main'd from the article on just "Progress" (as
970:
I suggest that we go through and separate the section I had titled "History" and you have titled "Idea of
Progress" and split it into two sections; one on the history of scholarly writing on the general idea or concept of Progress (titled "History"), and one on the specific theory called the "Idea of
650:
the titles in the bibliography show that scholars deliberately use the term "idea of progress" indicating it is something people know they are trying to achieve (they have an idea) and with a strong suggestion of inevitibility that the much broader term "progress" lacks. The articles involved are all
526:
I don't agree. We have more than enough books to establish notability, and we have better chances of developing the article if we create an entry. If you have problems with unsourced material, we can always delete that information and possibly be left with a stub. There is nothing wrong with that. We
489:
We already have several books discussing the expression as a topic. If they cover more than the phrase's history, then we can certainly do more than writing about its "use". Exactly why do you feel that we can't have a main entry for "Myth of
Progress" at the moment? It is my understanding that it is
383:
the merger ideas are good with one problem. Historians talk and write books and articles about the "Idea of progress", and include it in textbooks, which makes it the logical title and one that readers will search for. "Progress (history)" as a title is a poor jumble of words that no reader is likely
1139:
I think the article is about a much narrower and more specific topic--the "idea of progress" which is a certain set of beliefs about the inevitability and desirability of progress in improving the human condition. The title "progress" is far too broad and mischaractrizes the actual contents. Name it
998:
the section on the Am
Revolution tries to say that Enlightenment leaders (like Jefferson) believed that the Idea of Progress endorsed their political actions. The ancient history section is too brief, I agree, but it was supposed to link to the much-argued proposition that the history of the status
904:
Woman's history is a subfield of historiography and the article discusses how scholars have applied the Idea of
Progress to the study of women. On economics, the issue is not whether economics as a discipline has made progress but how the topic of economic development became a special application of
865:
Progress, i.e. what scholars have said over the years on the topic of "Progress", which is what the "History" section here is for, subdivided into historical eras. Then there are further sub-topics on what scholars have said on the topic of "Progress" with respect to various areas: how/whether there
962:
Ok, based on the new section lede of your (Rjensen)'s most recent edit, in the section now titled "Idea of
Progress" I am getting the impression that what you mean by "Idea of Progress" might be something like "the theory that technological progress entails social progress", or put in more layman's
966:
If so, it doesn't seem that all the material in the section now titled "Idea of
Progress" (or in the old article of the same name) is solely about that theory. Much of it seems to be about progress in more general terms: for example, the section on the American revolution speaks entirely about how
713:
welfare, inequality--etc etc--as well as sections explaining what "progress" meant in ancient Egypt, Israel, Rome and Greece, as well as the medieval world, China and India--and so on and on. The "myth of progress" literature is an attempt to refute the "idea of progress" and they belong together.
727:
I agree that an article that covered Progress in general would be suitable for all the types of content you list. However, we don't have material on all of that just yet: so if we were to have an article on just "Progress" in abstract, which I think we need, its contents would, for the moment, be
1326:
Implications of Kurzweil's work for the ideal of progress and/or history: 1) Exponential, not linear progress 2) The end of history: when the Singularity occurs, the rate at which new events occur will outpace traditional methods of history, while the new man/machine intelligence will be able to
795:
the section "Status of Women" is currently placed as a subsection of "History" as an equal-level title along with historical periods like Antiquity, the Enlightenment, and Modernity. This seems poorly organized. I had integrated it into the Modernity section as the dates references in there fall
256:
First, what is progress? I extrapolated a definition from vague ramblings in the text, but I am not an expert. What perspective does the article take -- a philosophical discussion about progress, or the history of the idea? Currently, it is written as the history. If it is meant to be about
1322:
the other day and thinking about its implications for progress as a historical idea. Kurzweil's book seems to be (one of several) logical evolutions of the ideal of progress discussed in this article. He holds many of the same tenets as the Enlightenment thinkers described within this article.
712:
An article that covered "progress" would include long sections telling what scholars have said about progress in science, mathematics, philosophy, art, music, literature, theater, religion, morality, sports, architecture, engineering, environmentalism, warfare, government, human rights, social
405:
should not be included in this merger: while all notions of progress are in some way or another social, the subject of that article seems to be progress through different systems of social organization, e.g. different political, economic, and moral/ethical systems. In that sense, I think it is
448:
I think it's great that we organize all the articles about "Progress". It's not good for the encyclopedia to have a subject scattered in various entries without criteria. I support the inclusion of the criticism of the 18th century concept of progress in the criticism section of this article.
586:
I agree that "Progress (history)" is a weak title, which is why I was proposing it be moved to just "Progress" (and what's currently there to "Progress (disambiguation)". There would of course be redirects from "Idea of Progress" and such, for anyone searching for or linking to those
689:
You say that the use of the phrase "idea of progress" indicates a desirability and perhaps inevitability associated with the concept of progress. As I said in my initial merge proposal, it seems rather like a POV fork to have one article on that attitude toward progress, and another
567:, which is what it is all about--that is the theory that progress will inevitably make the world better in every way (and its opponents). The current title is never used by anyone. The bibliography shows that scholars often write about the "idea of progress." The article on
1330:
Note that these are merely the ideas that I extrapolated from Kurzweil's book; maybe some one knows an article that has explored the topic already? This is probably a can of worms best not opened, but I was just going to throw it out there, in case there are any takers.
665:
As I already stated, I'm not at all denying that the phrase "idea of progress" is significant in the literature. But I'm curious, to help clarify what your objection to using the title of just "Progress": what would you expect to find at an article with just that title
1222:
currently is either about a subset of progress in the sense intended for this article (the "history and society" section at the top), or about something which just happens to have the word "progress" in the name, with the sole exception perhaps of
830:
Ok, then maybe it should go alongside Economics et al as a section about progress in a particular area? It just seems odd to have "History: Antiquity, Enlightment, Modernity, Status of Women". One of these things is not like the others.... :-)
294:
All four of these articles are rather weak in their respective ways, and I think it would be best for all of them to merge their good-quality contents together into a single article. Furthermore, I believe that article would be best located at
860:
I'm sensing some confusion of scope and purpose here. As I see it, this entire article is about a sub-topic within the field of history: that of Progress. Then within the discussion of Progress, there is the sub-topic of the history of the
590:
The only reason I'm suggesting that this article (currently titled "Progress (history)") be the target of the merger is because it's the oldest and thus has the most history attached to it. I don't intent the title to stay around at all.
919:
And the section on scientific progress is about whether modern scientific theories are any better or worse than older ones, yet you don't object to that. What's the difference between it and the section on philosophical progress?
815:
I suggest the "status of women" theme covers a lot of subfields--such as the status of women in China, in Europe, in the ancient world, etc.--historians do range pretty widely and the topic is not merely confined to the modern
623:, for example, an equally broad topic. One could equally write an article on the history of the concept of rights under the name "Idea of Rights" or some such, but it would be redundant with the article at titled just "Rights".
800:
I'm here to discuss. Please explain why this should be in its own section and not a part of the Modern history of progress? If nothing else, it certainly doesn't belong as a section alongside historical periods as it is now.
1359:
This sounds like a good idea to me. I believe there are others besides Kurzweil who have written on that subject too, though I know he is an important figure there. Perhaps draw from resources cited by articles such as
474:
article in principle, discussing just the use of that phrase, and hatnoted from the section here, IF there is enough material for such an article. Right now, it doesn't seem like there's enough to warrant that, though.
1388:
Slightly tired of the Philhellenistic bias in, well, pretty much everything. Many Sumerian stories begin with the line like "Men used to eat grass with their mouths like sheep" for instance "How grain came to Sumer"
1047:. I also think that it would be inappropriate to redirect this page to Progress and move Progress to its own disambiguation page, as this is just one definition of 'progress'. One alternative would be to move this to
1023:
The simplest approach is to move the sections on the Idea of Progress and Myth of Progress back to the "Idea of Progress" article. That will allow editors to ad d all they want here and rename it as they please.
845:
these are all fields of history and women's history is also a major field of history. The economics section probably should be retitled because it's not about the changes in economic theory, it's about economic
755:
Is it about progress within some vaguely "social" domain, exclusive of "science, mathematics, philosophy, art, music, literature..." etc as you list; as opposed to progress as applicable to any domain?
431:
I agree re "Social Progress. I think "myth of progress" fits well in a merger because its supporters specifically deny the "idea of progress", arguing aginst the inevitability or desirability themes.
971:
Progress" (titled thus), into the latter of which "Criticism" would be subsumed as a subsection. If the latter of those is large enough, it may even warrant remaining its own separate article at
694:) taking the opposite attitude, skeptical toward the desirability or inevitability of progress. For neutrality, both points of view should be included on a single article on the subject. --
330:
has more and better material, but this article is the oldest, so I still say the material from there should be incorporated here, though the end result will look more like that than this.
414:
inasmuch as it is about progress in a particular field (broad as it may be), rather than about (the possibility/desirability/inevitability of) progress in a more abstract sense. --
1183:
752:
Is it about the concept of progress as conceived of by Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment Western scholars; as opposed to as conceived by scholars in other places and times?
490:
a real academic subject that is followed by several scholars, in different fields. I believe we already have the sources to satisfy wikipedia's policies for an article.
527:
have millions of those in wikipedia. I can't see a single reason why you should or can stop someone from writing one about a topic for which there is so much material.
275:, and I have to say I find this whole corner of the wiki a mess. There appear to be four articles which, as far as I can tell, are largely discussing the same topic:
186:
on Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the
1043:
Hey. I saw someone requested a third opinion for this page, so here it is. Titling an article "Idea of Progress" seems awkward to me, and is probably a violation of
508:
before was two unsourced mini-paragraphs for a lede and one well-sourced substantial paragraph, which is retained in the same-titled section of this article (
1246:
moving forward is not restricted to history, you could have progress in completing your dissertation, which is not linked to progress in standard of living.
979:, perhaps the merger was not a good idea to begin with, though even if so I think it has been productive to the improvement of all the articles involved. --
626:
Besides, who else thinks about progress as a concept besides, as you say, "social thinkers"? There are articles on progress within a particular field (e.g.
1457:
1462:
1442:
1447:
1118:— This article is about the main sense of "progress", and should be at that name; the disambiguation page currently at that name should be at
1452:
188:
234:
605:
I think "progress" is much too general--it gets 248 million google hits. The article is about how social thinkers think about progress. .
1247:
749:
Is it about positive or supportive attitudes toward the idea of Progress; as opposed to negative or skeptical attitudes toward the same?
103:
905:
the Idea of Progress. The section on philosophy seems to be whether philosophers do a better job or worse than their predecessors.
1263:
But we wouldn't have an encyclopedia article on "progress in dissertation writing". That even more general sense is covered by the
743:
What I'm not understanding is precisely what subset of the broad topic "Progress" is identified by the topic "Idea of Progress":
178:
142:
746:
Is it merely about the use of that particular phrase; as opposed the idea referred to by that phrase (namely, that of Progress)?
1347:
542:
283:
seem to be, essentially, POV forks, albiet without being actual forks of a single previous article; meanwhile, this article (
94:
58:
1187:
33:
1307:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
1089:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
1055:. One other thing you could do, and that would probably be best, would be to open it up for consensus by listing it at
257:
philosophy of the idea, more stuff as in the "20th century" section should be summarized as the current introduction. -
1103:
512:). I think we should wait until there is more material than that before splitting it back off into its own article. --
1119:
1056:
890:
the article is not about progress at all. It is about a theory of how history operates as debated by historians.
363:
300:
963:
terms, "the theory that improvements in technology necessarily imply improvements in society". Is that correct?
1122:, which currently redirects to it. (The preceding is contentious; seeking outside input for consensus per 3O.)
238:
1319:
1251:
21:
1398:
1199:. There's no reason that this particular definition of 'progress' should take precedent over any other. —
1099:
737:
631:
571:
is a disambig page that leads to many quite different topics, so it's not a good vehicle for this article.
450:
411:
1048:
1343:
1224:
272:
39:
1394:
1164:
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
324:
and this article both share very similar chronological structures, so they should be easiest to merge.
1413:
1361:
1335:
530:
230:
1373:
1339:
1293:
1232:
1127:
984:
925:
875:
836:
806:
768:
733:
699:
639:
627:
596:
517:
480:
419:
407:
371:
308:
102:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1111:
671:
538:
509:
495:
458:
284:
1390:
1422:
1200:
1145:
1060:
1029:
1004:
939:
910:
895:
851:
821:
718:
656:
610:
576:
436:
389:
170:
651:
primarily about "the idea of progress" in this sense, and are not discussions of "progress."
976:
972:
691:
679:
675:
564:
505:
471:
355:
351:
337:
333:
327:
321:
280:
276:
867:
729:
683:
402:
343:
288:
1369:
1289:
1228:
1123:
1052:
1044:
980:
921:
871:
832:
802:
764:
695:
635:
592:
513:
476:
415:
367:
304:
86:
1436:
1365:
797:
619:
Knowledge tends to favor general titles for coverage of a general subject -- look at
534:
491:
454:
1418:
1141:
1025:
1000:
935:
906:
891:
847:
817:
714:
652:
606:
572:
432:
385:
258:
183:
160:
76:
1428:
1402:
1377:
1351:
1297:
1264:
1255:
1236:
1210:
1149:
1131:
1107:
1070:
1033:
1008:
988:
943:
929:
914:
899:
879:
855:
840:
825:
772:
722:
703:
660:
643:
614:
600:
580:
521:
499:
484:
462:
440:
423:
401:
Unrelated to the debate about what title to use: I'm thinking more now that
393:
375:
312:
261:
242:
1227:. What other senses of "progress" are you worried about this displacing? --
350:
So if no one objects within a day or so, I think I will go ahead and merge
346:
is the only article that seems like it should be at all difficult to merge.
70:
52:
1219:
1115:
667:
568:
359:
296:
271:
I came onto the subject of Progress on wikipedia here via a cleanup of
182:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
99:
620:
154:
136:
870:
and should be incorporated into that article, rather than here). --
670:), and how would it differ from the proposed article merging this (
98:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
934:
I think the section on scientific progress should be dropped too.
1303:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.
999:
of women validates the Idea of P. (says Leo Marx & Mazlish).
1327:
comprehend all of history in a manner presently inconceivable.
453:). If there are no objections, I will make the proper changes.
15:
336:
should be easily incorporated with the Opposition section of
299:
simpliciter, and the article currently at that name moved to
1391:
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.7.6#
796:
within that period, but Rjensen has undone that change. Per
227:
What about the idea of progress as seen outside the West?
1368:
to help build such a section. Please go right ahead :-) --
358:
into this article, and do the moving of this article to
1140:"Idea of Progress" (the original name nbefore merger).
1083:
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal.
1284:
Outside commentators, please see the section titled
303:
and linked from a hatnote on this page. Thoughts? --
1186:, please explain your reasons, taking into account
1059:and get other people to comment on it. Thoughts? —
1288:above for previous discussion on this subject. --
1267:, which I have just linked to from this article.
291:appear to have no difference in scope at all.
8:
763:Thanks in advance for your clarification. --
362:and the moving of what's currently there to
1184:polling is not a substitute for discussion
131:
47:
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
1285:
133:
49:
1318:I was flipping through Ray Kurzweil's
563:I suggest we just rename this article
192:about philosophy content on Knowledge.
1419:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
176:This redirect is within the scope of
92:This redirect is within the scope of
19:
7:
510:Progress (history)#Myth of Progress
38:It is of interest to the following
1458:Redirect-Class Philosophy articles
14:
1463:NA-importance Philosophy articles
1393:maybe this is worth mentioning.
470:I don't object to there being a
198:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
163:
153:
135:
79:
69:
51:
20:
1443:Redirect-Class history articles
1094:The result of the proposal was
201:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
1448:NA-importance history articles
1265:wiktionary entry on "progress"
1188:Knowledge's naming conventions
1:
1176:, then sign your comment with
112:Knowledge:WikiProject History
106:and see a list of open tasks.
1453:WikiProject History articles
1429:02:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
1298:06:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
1256:03:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
1237:23:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
1211:18:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
1150:08:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
1132:06:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
1108:22:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1071:06:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
1034:08:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
1009:08:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
989:05:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
944:08:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
930:05:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
915:05:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
900:03:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
880:03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
856:03:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
841:01:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
826:01:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
773:03:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
723:01:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
704:23:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
661:07:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
644:23:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
615:21:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
601:20:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
581:00:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
522:03:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
500:02:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
485:01:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
463:21:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
441:01:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
424:00:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
394:19:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
376:11:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
313:07:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
262:09:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
115:Template:WikiProject History
223:Progress in other cultures?
1479:
1403:20:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
1378:09:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
1352:02:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
252:What is the article about?
1120:Progress (disambiguation)
1057:Knowledge:Requested moves
545:) 12:08, January 24, 2010
364:Progress (disambiguation)
301:Progress (disambiguation)
148:
64:
46:
1305:Please do not modify it.
1280:Any additional comments:
1086:Please do not modify it.
504:The article that was as
243:15:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
1320:The Singularity Is Near
1384:Always with the Greeks
738:Philosophical progress
632:Philosophical progress
451:Myth of the Flat Earth
412:Philosophical progress
179:WikiProject Philosophy
1408:Second merge proposal
1314:Exponential Progress?
1225:Evolutionary_progress
1218:Everything listed at
958:Scope of this article
406:perhaps more akin to
273:Progress (philosophy)
1414:Talk:Social progress
1362:Techno-progressivism
267:Mass merger proposal
1286:Rename this article
1049:Historical progress
734:Scientific progress
628:Scientific progress
559:Rename this article
408:Scientific progress
204:Philosophy articles
95:WikiProject History
1112:Progress (history)
863:idea or concept of
758:Or something else?
672:Progress (history)
317:Further thoughts:
285:Progress (history)
189:general discussion
34:content assessment
1355:
1338:comment added by
1100:Anthony Appleyard
533:comment added by
233:comment added by
220:
219:
216:
215:
212:
211:
171:Philosophy portal
130:
129:
126:
125:
1470:
1425:
1354:
1332:
1216:Comment/Question
1207:
1204:
1180:
1174:
1168:
1088:
1067:
1064:
1019:Another approach
977:Idea of Progress
973:Idea of Progress
692:Myth of Progress
680:Myth of Progress
676:Idea of Progress
565:Idea of Progress
546:
506:Myth of Progress
472:Myth of Progress
356:Myth of Progress
352:Idea of Progress
338:Idea of Progress
334:Myth of Progress
328:Idea of Progress
322:Idea of Progress
281:Myth of Progress
277:Idea of Progress
245:
206:
205:
202:
199:
196:
173:
168:
167:
166:
157:
150:
149:
139:
132:
120:
119:
118:history articles
116:
113:
110:
89:
84:
83:
82:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
25:
24:
16:
1478:
1477:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1433:
1432:
1427:
1423:
1410:
1386:
1333:
1316:
1311:
1276:
1205:
1202:
1178:
1172:
1166:
1160:
1084:
1078:
1065:
1062:
1041:
1021:
960:
868:Social progress
793:
791:Status of Women
730:Social progress
684:Social progress
561:
528:
403:Social progress
344:Social progress
289:Social progress
269:
254:
228:
225:
203:
200:
197:
194:
193:
169:
164:
162:
117:
114:
111:
108:
107:
85:
80:
78:
12:
11:
5:
1476:
1474:
1466:
1465:
1460:
1455:
1450:
1445:
1435:
1434:
1417:
1409:
1406:
1385:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1315:
1312:
1310:
1309:
1300:
1282:
1275:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1193:
1192:
1167:*'''Support'''
1159:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1110:
1092:
1091:
1079:
1077:
1076:Requested move
1074:
1053:Human progress
1040:
1037:
1020:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
959:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
792:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
761:
760:
759:
756:
753:
750:
747:
741:
687:
648:
647:
646:
624:
588:
560:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
446:
445:
444:
443:
399:
398:
397:
396:
384:to search for.
348:
347:
341:
331:
325:
268:
265:
253:
250:
248:
235:174.89.238.202
224:
221:
218:
217:
214:
213:
210:
209:
207:
175:
174:
158:
146:
145:
140:
128:
127:
124:
123:
121:
104:the discussion
91:
90:
87:History portal
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1475:
1464:
1461:
1459:
1456:
1454:
1451:
1449:
1446:
1444:
1441:
1440:
1438:
1431:
1430:
1426:
1420:
1415:
1407:
1405:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1366:Transhumanism
1363:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1328:
1324:
1321:
1313:
1308:
1306:
1301:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1281:
1278:
1277:
1273:
1266:
1262:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1248:76.66.192.206
1245:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1221:
1217:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1209:
1208:
1198:
1195:
1194:
1191:
1189:
1185:
1177:
1173:*'''Oppose'''
1171:
1165:
1162:
1161:
1157:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1090:
1087:
1081:
1080:
1075:
1073:
1072:
1069:
1068:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1039:Third opinion
1038:
1036:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1018:
1010:
1006:
1002:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
986:
982:
978:
974:
968:
964:
957:
945:
941:
937:
933:
932:
931:
927:
923:
918:
917:
916:
912:
908:
903:
902:
901:
897:
893:
889:
881:
877:
873:
869:
864:
859:
858:
857:
853:
849:
844:
843:
842:
838:
834:
829:
828:
827:
823:
819:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
808:
804:
799:
790:
774:
770:
766:
762:
757:
754:
751:
748:
745:
744:
742:
739:
735:
731:
726:
725:
724:
720:
716:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
701:
697:
693:
688:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
664:
663:
662:
658:
654:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
622:
618:
617:
616:
612:
608:
604:
603:
602:
598:
594:
589:
585:
584:
583:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
558:
544:
540:
536:
532:
525:
524:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
502:
501:
497:
493:
488:
487:
486:
482:
478:
473:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
460:
456:
452:
442:
438:
434:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
404:
395:
391:
387:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
345:
342:
339:
335:
332:
329:
326:
323:
320:
319:
318:
315:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
292:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
266:
264:
263:
260:
251:
249:
246:
244:
240:
236:
232:
222:
208:
191:
190:
185:
181:
180:
172:
161:
159:
156:
152:
151:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
122:
105:
101:
97:
96:
88:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1411:
1387:
1329:
1325:
1317:
1304:
1302:
1279:
1260:
1243:
1215:
1201:
1196:
1181:
1175:
1169:
1163:
1095:
1093:
1085:
1082:
1061:
1042:
1022:
969:
965:
961:
862:
794:
562:
447:
400:
349:
316:
293:
270:
255:
247:
229:— Preceding
226:
187:
177:
93:
40:WikiProjects
29:
1395:Moon Oracle
1334:—Preceding
529:—Preceding
1437:Categories
1424:reply here
1274:Discussion
195:Philosophy
184:philosophy
143:Philosophy
1370:Pfhorrest
1290:Pfhorrest
1229:Pfhorrest
1124:Pfhorrest
981:Pfhorrest
922:Pfhorrest
872:Pfhorrest
833:Pfhorrest
803:Pfhorrest
765:Pfhorrest
740:are now).
696:Pfhorrest
636:Pfhorrest
593:Pfhorrest
514:Pfhorrest
477:Pfhorrest
416:Pfhorrest
368:Pfhorrest
305:Pfhorrest
1348:contribs
1340:Latvahat
1336:unsigned
1220:Progress
1182:. Since
1116:Progress
668:Progress
569:Progress
543:contribs
535:Maziotis
531:unsigned
492:Maziotis
455:Maziotis
360:Progress
297:Progress
231:unsigned
30:redirect
1261:Comment
1206:Annyong
1197:Opppose
1142:Rjensen
1066:Annyong
1045:WP:NAME
1026:Rjensen
1001:Rjensen
936:Rjensen
907:Rjensen
892:Rjensen
848:Rjensen
846:history
818:Rjensen
816:period.
715:Rjensen
653:Rjensen
607:Rjensen
587:titles.
573:Rjensen
433:Rjensen
386:Rjensen
259:Pgan002
109:History
100:History
59:History
1244:Oppose
1158:Survey
1096:reject
798:WP:BRD
736:, and
682:, and
621:Rights
287:) and
36:scale.
1203:Hello
1063:Hello
28:This
1416:. --
1412:See
1399:talk
1374:talk
1364:and
1344:talk
1294:talk
1252:talk
1233:talk
1179:~~~~
1146:talk
1128:talk
1104:talk
1030:talk
1005:talk
985:talk
940:talk
926:talk
911:talk
896:talk
876:talk
852:talk
837:talk
822:talk
807:talk
769:talk
719:talk
700:talk
657:talk
640:talk
630:and
611:talk
597:talk
577:talk
539:talk
518:talk
496:talk
481:talk
459:talk
437:talk
420:talk
410:and
390:talk
372:talk
366:. --
354:and
309:talk
279:and
239:talk
1051:or
674:),
1439::
1401:)
1376:)
1350:)
1346:•
1296:)
1254:)
1235:)
1170:or
1148:)
1130:)
1114:→
1106:)
1098:.
1032:)
1007:)
987:)
942:)
928:)
920:--
913:)
898:)
878:)
854:)
839:)
831:--
824:)
809:)
801:--
771:)
732:,
721:)
702:)
678:,
659:)
642:)
613:)
599:)
591:--
579:)
541:•
520:)
498:)
483:)
475:--
461:)
439:)
422:)
392:)
374:)
311:)
241:)
1421:|
1397:(
1372:(
1342:(
1292:(
1250:(
1231:(
1190:.
1144:(
1126:(
1102:(
1028:(
1003:(
983:(
938:(
924:(
909:(
894:(
874:(
850:(
835:(
820:(
805:(
767:(
717:(
698:(
690:(
686:?
666:(
655:(
638:(
609:(
595:(
575:(
537:(
516:(
494:(
479:(
457:(
435:(
418:(
388:(
370:(
340:.
307:(
237:(
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
