The claim that this article is not neutral, in its current form, is without merit. Some individuals want to promote cosmotheism by fallaciously linking it to futurism. A more appropriate linkage might be one between cosmotheism, millennialism and eugenics otherwise ideologies such as Christian eschatology and apocalypticism should be mentioned in a Futurism article, which would obviously be absurd. Loremaster 15:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This page is empty of useful content. It seems to have been co-opted to direct readers towards science fiction subject matter, vis Artificial Intelligence, nanotech and other stuff that still doesn't exist. In that sense, it is not neutral. A page on a branch of philosophy should describe the roots of that branch, specifically written works of noted authors (who either label themselves as futurists or have been labelled such by a consensus of readers), and how it came out of other areas of philosophy. If science fiction is futurism, then futurism is not philosophy, it is fantasy. Brent 18:49, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
I agree. Do you want to work on it or should I? Loremaster 19:22, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest a redirect to Futurology. The topics are identical, and the futurology entry even refers to futurologists as futurists. Futurism is just another way of saying futurology, and that article is more than adequate. Opinion? Augur 15:55, 13 August 02004 (EST)
I agree. I made the redirect. The neutrality dispute is over. Loremaster 20:15, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
