U.S. Transhumanist Party Discussed by Professor Steve Fuller in the National Academy of Sciences’ “Issues in Science and Technology” Magazine

U.S. Transhumanist Party Discussed by Professor Steve Fuller in the National Academy of Sciences’ “Issues in Science and Technology” Magazine

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II


The Spring 2017 issue of the magazine Issues in Science and Technology, published by the National Academy of Sciences, features an article by Professor Steve Fuller, the Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology in the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom. This article, entitled “Does this pro-science party deserve our votes?” discusses the Transhumanist Party from the time of Zoltan Istvan’s 2016 run for President.

In this article, which offers both positive discussion and critiques of Istvan’s campaign, Professor Fuller writes:

What Istvan offered voters was a clear vision of how science and technology could deliver a heaven on earth for everyone. The Transhumanist Bill of Rights envisages that it is within the power of science and technology to deliver the end to all significant suffering, the enhancement of one’s existing capacities, and the indefinite extension of one’s life. To the fans whom Istvan attracted during his campaign, these added up to “liberty makers.” For them, the question was what prevented the federal government from prioritizing what Istvan had presented as well within human reach.

It would be interesting to see Professor Fuller’s thoughts, should he later wish to offer them, on the U.S. Transhumanist Party’s evolution over the past several months, especially as our latest, record-setting member vote will soon give rise to a major expansion of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform.

One thought on “U.S. Transhumanist Party Discussed by Professor Steve Fuller in the National Academy of Sciences’ “Issues in Science and Technology” Magazine

  1. I appreciate that Professor Steve Fuller took out the time to write a critique of the U.S. Transhumanist Party.

    I understand his concerns, and I think both the party and individual members should take this into consideration even if some aren’t truly applicable for the purpose of bettering our understanding of how people see this line of thought, reasoning, and ideal.

    I do think that in general Professor Steve Fuller made the assumption that, for example, immortality will happen overnight rather than being a relatively more gradual process of life extension, which I think would be more likely.

    To conclude; I think that the U.S. Transhumanist Party, and we as individuals can see this critique as an example of areas where we may improve our communication with the public, to better answer their questions, and present arguments in ways that are more palatable for the general public.

    I would love to hear anyone’s thoughts, and possible counter-arguments to this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *