Browsed by
Tag: morality

How We Can Judge the Safety and Efficacy of New Vaccines Prior to Phase III Data and Why We Must – Article by Dan Elton

How We Can Judge the Safety and Efficacy of New Vaccines Prior to Phase III Data and Why We Must – Article by Dan Elton

Daniel C. Elton, Ph.D.

A common refrain we hear from public intellectuals about vaccines prior to Phase III data is “we don’t know anything about the safety or efficacy of vaccine X”. This attitude is both false and misleading to the public, instilling uncertainty and fear about vaccines. To see why it is false, consider if a normal vaccine safety study was done, but by coincidence all of the vaccines were given in hospital rooms that were painted blue. Could we conclude on the basis of such a study whether the vaccine would be safe if administered in rooms painted red? Yes, we can, and we should. We can utilize two forms of reasoning to conclude that the vaccine is safe if given in red rooms, even though we have no data on the matter.

The first form of reasoning roughly approximates the way an ideal Bayesian statistical reasoner would function to compute what is called a “prior probability distribution”. Under this form of reasoning, we consider the millions of doses of similar vaccines (called the “reference class”) that have been administered. For instance, we might consider the vaccines developed for very similar coronaviruses like SARS and MERS.  We note that if the color of paint did affect the safety of those vaccines, this would have likely been detected over the course of prior studies and over the course of millions of doses given previously. Of course, there is a chance the correlation might have been missed. To figure out how big that is, we can go a level deeper and consider a reference class of “things people might notice or fail to notice in medical studies”. We can conclude that for prior vaccines, if such correlations existed they would generally be picked up. On the basis of this and the fact that no such correlation was ever discovered in the reference class of prior vaccines we can conclude that the probability of vaccines like the COVID-19 vaccine being dependent on the color of paint is very small. 

The second type of reasoning, which happens to be much more straightforward in this situation, is what the physicist David Deutsch calls “reasoning from our best explanation of the world”. According to the philosopher of science Karl Popper, we should reason using our explanatory theories of the world which have survived the most rounds of attempted falsification, and which have the highest degree of falsifiability (this rules out non-testable explanations like “vaccines work via invisible ghosts”). In more prosaic terms, this simply means reasoning using the best scientific theories which make predictions in the domain under consideration. We note that our best theories of vaccine function do not anywhere depend on the color of paint in the room. Instead they depend on things like T-cells, binding affinities of molecules, the concentrations of certain molecules in the body, etc. So, we decide that the vaccine is safe regardless of the color of paint in the room where it is administered. 

Both of these forms of reasoning are valid and both are foundational to science, rationality, and human progress. Both of these types of reasoning can be used to say that vaccines under development are likely to be safe and effective before any data comes in. It’s why a reporter who interviewed numerous top scientists reported that they all told him that “they expected the vaccines were safe and effective all along.” Yet instead of proudly sharing this important knowledge with the public, we rarely hear scientists say publicly that they expect the vaccines are safe and efficacious. Instead, they hedge, saying “we have to wait until the data comes in”. This is unethical both on Kantian grounds (they are lying) and on consequentialist grounds, because it leads to undue caution and the public being afraid of vaccines. 

Unfortunately, there is little incentive for scientists to tell the truth about what the likely risks and benefits are with new vaccines before full Phase III data is published. If, for instance, one or two people suffer severe side effects in a Phase III trial (which is rare, but has happened) a scientist who said they suspected it was “very safe” might receive harsh criticism for making a premature assessment. On the other hand, the same scientist will get no pushback for saying “we need to wait for data to make a judgement”. Indeed, they are likely to even be praised for exhibiting the virtues of “caution, prudence, and scientific skepticism”. Moreover, under no scenario should someone be allowed to get a vaccine until the full data comes in, even though it’s fine to allow people to sign up for studies where they have a 50-50 chance of getting the vaccine. Not very consistent, eh?

As US Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II has described in detail in an an earlier publication on this site, all of this is the result of a deeply flawed and deadly ethical principle called the precautionary principle, which unfortunately many people have fallen under the sway of. The principle originates in the environmentalist movement but is widely applied in medicine, and was instrumental in decisions such as the Bush administration’s ban on stem-cell research and decisions to ban life-saving GMO technologies such as golden rice. It has been formulated to varying degrees in several different ways. The United Nations World Charter for Nature (1982) issued one version of the principle, stating: 

Activities which are likely to pose a significant risk to nature shall be preceded by an exhaustive examination; their proponents shall demonstrate that expected benefits outweigh potential damage to nature, and where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed. 

The principle starts off OK but dives into serious error in the last line. The issue is that the precautionary principle only focuses on the potential adverse effects of proceeding and ignores the potential adverse effects of not proceeding, i.e., the effects of delay. As should now be clear in the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, not proceeding can sometimes be much more deadly than proceeding! There is often a high but unclear risk to not proceeding, and a low but unclear risk to not proceeding. (Picture two probability distributions, both wide (unclear) but one with a mean that is distinctly higher than the other). That’s where the precautionary principle throws expected utility theory (cost-benefit analysis) out and says we cannot proceed. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist Freeman Dyson stated the issue as follows: 

The Precautionary Principle says that if some course of action carries even a remote chance of irreparable damage to the ecology, then you shouldn’t do it, no matter how great the possible advantages of the action may be. You are not allowed to balance costs against benefits when deciding what to do.” — Freeman Dyson, Report from the 2001 World Economic Forum

Imagine an alternative world in which our society and government was not under the sway of the precautionary principle. In this alternative world, scientists would give their truthful assessment of new vaccines to the public, stating that they are likely safe and effective, using one or both of the reasoning methods mentioned above. In such a world, given the clear potential harms of inaction, the public would be allowed to purchase new vaccines if they wanted, if the companies manufacturing them were comfortable doing so, and if they were fully informed prior to their decision that they were taking an unapproved product that carries potential risks but also potential benefits. Initially, only a few people would purchase the vaccines, perhaps on the basis of Phase I results. These would be folks like those who injected themselves with a DIY vaccine over the summer, and the tens of thousands who were willing to participate in clinical trials as early as last spring. Companies would be incentivized to survey those who took the vaccine and collect self-reported data on their outcomes, which is very cheap and easy to do. After a few months going by without any of those people keeling over and dying, and with very few (likely none) of those people getting hospitalized for COVID-19, more people would feel comfortable getting the vaccine. Things would quickly snowball, with more and more people becoming willing to get the vaccine. During this time the distribution system would have been stood up and become operational, with on-site stockpiles building up ahead of the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (currently, the FDA does not allow hospitals to stockpile unapproved vaccines ahead of their EUA). To present this case in its strongest form, in a future post I plan to estimate how many lives would have been saved, assuming many vaccines had become available to those who wanted them last March or August. However, I hope it’s easy to see that thousands of lives would have been saved in this alternative world.  

For more on the transhumanist alternative to the precautionary principle, the proactionary principle, see Max More’s excellent book chapter as well as the Wikipedia article and references therein.

Dan Elton, Ph. D., is Director of Scholarship for the U.S. Transhumanist Party.  You can find him on Twitter at @moreisdifferent, where he accepts direct messages. 

U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II Speaks with Steele Archer of Debt Nation

U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II Speaks with Steele Archer of Debt Nation

Gennady Stolyarov II
Steele Archer

Watch this wide-ranging discussion between U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II and Steele Archer of the Debt Nation show, addressing a broad array of emerging technologies, the aspirations of transhumanism, and aspects of both broader and more personal economic matters – from the impact of technology on the labor market to how Mr. Stolyarov paid off his mortgage in 6.5 years. This conversation delved into Austrian economics, techno-optimism, cultural obstacles to progress, the work and ideals of the U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party, life extension and the “Death is Wrong” children’s book, science fiction, and space colonization – among many other topics.
In Support of “Unfit for the Future”: When the Vessel is Unfit for the Task – Article by Hilda Koehler

In Support of “Unfit for the Future”: When the Vessel is Unfit for the Task – Article by Hilda Koehler

Hilda Koehler

This essay has been submitted for publication to the Journal of Posthuman Studies.

This essay is written in support of the ideas presented by Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson in their book Unfit for the Future: the Need for Moral Enhancement. I will argue that Savulescu and Persson’s arguments for moral bioenhancement should be given more serious consideration, on the grounds that moral bioenhancement will most likely be humanity’s best chance at ensuring its future ethical progress, since our current achievements in rapid ethical progress have been highly contingent on economic progress and an increasing quality of life. As a vehicle for for ethical progress, this is becoming increasingly untenable as the world enters a new period of resource scarcity brought about by the ravages of climate change. This essay will also respond to some of the claims against human genetic enhancement, and transhumanism in general, made by critic John Gray. Finally, the concluding remarks of this essay will examine a possible long-term drawback to moral bioenhancement which has not net been raised by Savulescu’s critics thus far – namely, that genetically altering future human beings to be less aggressive could unintentionally result in them becoming complacent to a point of lacking self-preservation.

Maslow and Malthus

Ethical philosophers in Steven Pinker’s camp may argue that the consideration of moral bioenhancement is absurd because moral education has apparently been sufficient enough to bring forth radical moral progress in terms of civil liberties in the 20th and 21st centuries. The 20th century heralded in never-before-seen progress in terms of the civil rights granted to women, ethnic minorities, LGBT+ people, and the working class. As Pinker points out, crime rates plummeted over the past 150 years, and so has the total number of wars being fought throughout the world. Savulescu admits that this is a valid point.

However, Savulescu’s main point of contention is that while the overall rates of violent crime have been drastically reduced, rapid advancements in technology have enabled rouge individuals to inflict more mass damage than at any other point in human history. While overall rates of interpersonal violence and warfare are decreasing, advancements in technology have exponentially increased the ability of individual actors to inflict harm on others to a greater extent than at any other point in human history. It takes just one lone Unabomber-type anarchist to genetically engineer a strain of smallpox virus in a backyard laboratory, to start a pandemic killing millions of innocent people, argues Savulescu. A statistic he constantly cites is that 1% of the overall human population are psychopaths. This means that there are approximately 77 million psychopaths alive today.

I would like to raise a further point in support of Savulescu’s argument. I would argue that the exceptional progress in ethics and civil rights that the developed world has witnessed in the last century has been the result of unprecedented levels of economic growth and vast improvements in the average quality of life. The life spans, health spans, and accessibility of food, medicine, and consumer goods seen in developed economies today would have been an unbelievable utopian dream as little as 250 years ago. One of X Prize Foundation chairman Peter Diamandis’s favorite quips is that our standard of living has increased so exponentially that the average lower-income American has a far higher quality of life than the wealthiest of robber barons did in the 19th century.

As Pinker himself points out, the first moral philosophies of the Axial Age arose when our ancestors finally became agriculturally productive enough to no longer worry about basic survival. Once they had roofs over their heads and sufficient grain stores, they could begin to wax lyrical about philosophy, the meaning of life, and the place of the individual in wider society. Arguably, the same correlation was strongly demonstrated in the post-World War II era in the developed economies of the world. Once the population’s basic needs are not just met, but they are also provided with access to higher education and a burgeoning variety of consumer goods, they’re much less likely to be in conflict with “out” groups over scarce resources. Similarly, incredible advancements in maternal healthcare and birth control played a major role in the socio-economic emancipation of women.

Our ethical progress being highly contingent on economic progress and quality of life should concern us for one major reason – climate change and the resource scarcity that follows it. The UN estimates that the world’s population will hit 9.8 billion by 2050. At the same time, food insecurity and water scarcity are going to become increasingly common. According to UNICEF, 1.3 million people in Madagascar are now at risk of malnutrition, due to food shortages caused by cyclones and droughts. There could as many as 25 million more children worldwide suffering from climate-change-caused malnutrition by the middle of this century. This is on top of the 149 million malnourished children below 5 years old, who are already suffering from stunted growth, as of 2019.

This is the worst-case scenario that climate-change doomsdayers and authors of fiction revolving around dystopian civilizational collapse keep on warning us of. There is a legitimate fear that a rapid dwindling of access to food, medical care, and clean water could lead currently progressive developed economies to descend back into pre-Enlightenment levels of barbarism. Looting and black markets for necessities could flourish, while riots break out over access to food and medical supplies. Ostensibly, worsening scarcity could encourage the proliferation of human trafficking, especially of females from desperate families. The idea is often dismissed as wildly speculative alarmist screed by a considerable number of middle-income city dwellers living in developed nations. Food shortages caused by climate change have mostly affected the sub-Saharan Africa and India, where they’re far out of sight and out of mind to most people in developed economies.

However, the World Bank estimates that 140 million people could become refugees by 2050, as a result of climate change. These populations will predominantly be from Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, but it is likely that a significant percentage of them will seek asylum in Europe and America. And developed Western economies will only be spared from the worst effects of climate change for so long. North Carolina has already been afflicted by severe flooding caused by Hurricane Florence in 2018, just as it was  affected by Hurricane Matthew which had struck two years earlier. Climate journalist David Wallace-Wells has gone so far as to claim that a four degree increase in global temperature by 2100 could result in resource scarcity so severe, that it will effectively double the number of wars we see in the world today.

Savulescu argues that the fact that we’ve already let climate change and global income inequality get this bad is itself proof that we’re naturally hardwired towards selfishness and short-term goals.

A Response to John Gray

As one of the most well-known critics of transhumanism, John Gray has said that it is naive to dream that humanity’s future will somehow be dramatically safer, more humane, and more rational than its past. Gray claims that humanity’s pursuit of moral progress will ultimately never see true fruition, because our proclivities towards irrationality and self-preservation will inevitably override our utopian goals in the long run. Gray cites the example of torture, which was formally banned in various treaties across Europe during the 20th century. However, this hasn’t stopped the US from torturing prisoners of war with all sorts of brutal methods, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Gray claims that this is proof that moral progress can be rolled back just as easily as it is made. Justin E. H. Smith makes similar arguments about the inherent, biologically-influenced cognitive limits of human rational thinking, although he does not explicitly criticise transhumanism itself. And Savulescu agrees with him. Throughout their argument, both Savulescu and Persson hammer home the assertion that humans have a much greater predilection towards violence than altruism.

But here Gray is making a major assumption – that future generations of human beings will continue to have the same genetically-predisposed psychology and cognitive capabilities as we currently do. Over millennia, we have been trying to adapt humanity to a task that evolution did not predispose us towards. We’ve effectively been trying to carry water from a well using a colander. We might try to stop the water from leaking out from the colander as best we can by cupping its sides and bottom with our bare palms, but Savulescu is proposing a radically different solution; that we should re-model the colander into a proper soup bowl.

It seems that Gray is overlooking some of his own circular reasoning which he uses to perpetuate his arguments against transhumanist principles and genetic enhancement. He argues that humanity will never truly be able to overcome our worst proclivities towards violence and selfishness. However, he simultaneously argues that endeavoring to enhance our cognitive capabilities and dispositions towards rationality and altruism are a lost cause that will be ultimately futile. Following Gray’s line of reasoning will effectively keep humanity stuck in a catch-22 situation where we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Gray is telling us that we need to resign ourselves to never being able to have a proper water-holding vessel while simultaneously discouraging us from considering the possibility of going to a workshop to weld the holes in our colander shut.

Windows of Opportunity

There is one final reason for which I will argue for greater urgency in considering Savulescu’s proposal seriously. Namely, we are currently have a very rare window of opportunity to execute it practically. If Gray is right about the likelihood that moral progress can be rolled back more easily than it is made, then he should acknowledge that we need to take full advantage of the current moral progress in developed economies, while we still have the chance to. Rapid advancements in CRISPR technologies and gene-editing are increasing the practical viability of moral bioenhancement without the consumption of neurotransmitters. Savulescu argues that we need to strike while the iron is hot; while the world economy is still relatively healthy and while STEM fields are still receiving billions in funding for research and development.

If nothing else, a rather intellectually sparse appeal to novelty can be made in defence of Savulescu’s proposal. Given that climate change could be the greatest existential risk humanity has ever faced in its whole history to date, we should begin considering more radical options to deal with its worst ravages. The limited faculties of rationality and altruism which nature has saddled us with have brought us millennia of warfare, genocide, radical inequality in resource distribution, and sexual violence. We keep on saying “never again” after every single cataclysmic man-made tragedy, but “again” still keeps on happening. Now is as good a time as ever to consider the possibility that humanity’s cognitive faculties are themselves fundamentally flawed, and inadequate to cope with the seemingly insurmountable challenges that lie ahead of us.

A Possible Future Negative Consequence of Moral Bioenhancement to be Considered

Multiple objections to Savulescu’s proposal have been raised by authors such as Alexander Thomas and Rebecca Bennett. I would like to raise another possible objection to moral bioenhancement, although I myself am a proponent of it. A possible unforeseen consequence of radically genetically reprogramming homo sapiens to be significantly less selfish and prone to aggression could be that this will simultaneously destroy our drive for self-improvement. One could argue that the only reason human beings have made it far enough to become the most technologically advanced and powerful species in our solar system was precisely because our drive for self-preservation and insatiable desire for an ever-increasing quality of life. You could claim that if we had just remained content to be hunter-gatherers, we would never have gotten to the level of civilization we’re at now. It’s more likely that we would have gone extinct on the savannah like our other hominid cousins, who were not homo sapiens.

Our inability to be satisfied with the naturally-determined status quo is the very reason the transhumanist movement itself exists. What happens, then, if we genetically re-dispose homo sapiens to become more selfless and less aggressive? Could this policy ironically backfire and create future generations of human beings who become complacent about technological progress and self-improvement? Furthermore, what happens if these future generations of morally bioenhanced human beings face new existential threats which require them to act urgently? What happens if they face an asteroid collision or a potential extraterrestrial invasion (although the latter seems to be far less likely)? We don’t want to end up genetically engineering future generations of human beings who are so devoid of self-preservation that they accept extinction as an outcome they should just peacefully resign themselves to. And if human beings become a space-faring species and end up making contact with a highly-advanced imperialist alien species bent on galaxy-wide colonization, our future generations will have to take up arms in self-defence.

This raises the question of whether it might be possible to simultaneously increase the human propensity towards altruism and non-violence towards other human beings, while still preserving the human predisposition towards ensuring our overall survival and well-being. If such a radical re-programming of humanity’s cognitive disposition is possible, it’s going to be a very delicate balancing act. This major shortcoming is one that proponents of moral bioenhancement have not yet formulated a plausible safety net for. Techno-utopian advocates claim that we could one day create a powerful artificial intelligence programme that will indefinitely protect humanity against unforeseen attacks from extraterrestrials or possible natural catastrophes. More serious discussion needs to be devoted to finding possible ways to make moral bioenhancement as realistically viable as possible.


The arguments put forth by Savulescu in Unfit for the Future should be reviewed with greater urgency and thoughtful consideration, and this essay has argued in favour of this appeal. We cannot take the great strides in civil rights made in the last 100 years, which have been heavily dependent on economic development and the growth of the capitalist world economy, for granted. As resource scarcity brought about by climate change looms on the near horizon, the very system which the 20th and 21st centuries’ great ethical progress has been contingent upon threatens to crumble. Gray is right in arguing that the human animal is fundamentally flawed and that repeated historical attempts at better models of moral systems have failed to truly reform humanity. And this is where Savulescu proposes a controversial answer to Gray’s resignation to humanity’s impending self-destruction. We must consider reforming the human animal itself. As the field of gene-editing and the development of impulse-controlling neurotransmitter drugs continue to show great promise, world governments and private institutions should begin to view these as viable options to creating a less short-sighted, less-aggressive, and more rational version of homo sapiens 2.0. There are only so many more global-scale man-made catastrophes that mankind can further inflict upon itself and the planet, before this radical proposal is finally undertaken as a last resort.

Hilda Koehler is a fourth-year political science major at the National University of Singapore. She is a proud supporter of the transhumanist movement and aims to do her best to promote transhumanism and progress towards the Singularity.

James Hughes’ Problems of Transhumanism: A Review (Part 4) – Article by Ojochogwu Abdul

James Hughes’ Problems of Transhumanism: A Review (Part 4) – Article by Ojochogwu Abdul


Ojochogwu Abdul

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

Part 4: Moral Universalism vs. Relativism

James Hughes’ essays on the problems of transhumanism continue with a discussion on conflicts, borrowed from the Enlightenment, between universalism and relativism within transhumanism. The Enlightenment event (European and global), in addition to its attack and severance of the roots of traditional European culture in the sacred, magic, kingship, and hierarchy, thereby secularizing all institutions and ideas, also (intellectually and to some extent in practice) effectively set on course the demolition of all legitimizing basis of monarchy, aristocracy, woman’s subordination to man, ecclesiastical authority, and slavery. These were replaced with the principles of universality, equality, and democracy. Included in this was also an argument for moral universalism, a position that ethics and law should apply equally to all humans.

Now, despite profound differences of outlook among the Enlightenment thinkers, there was a wide area of agreement about some fundamental points, i.e., the reality of natural law (in a formulation that signaled a departure from the language of orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine), of eternal principles the adherence to which alone could make humans enjoy wisdom, happiness, virtue, and freedom. For theists, deists and atheists, for optimists and pessimists, and for puritans, primitivists, as well as believers in progress and the finest fruits of science and culture, only and just one set of universal and unalterable principles governed the world. These laws were the principles that governed inanimate and animate nature, facts and events, means and ends, private and public life, as well as all societies, epochs and civilizations. Humans degenerate into crime, vice and misery only by failing to follow them. There may have been differences and disagreements among the Enlightenment thinkers about the nature of these laws, the process of their discovery, or who even possessed the qualification to expound them; but that these laws were real, and could be known, be it with certainty or probability, was the widely accepted and central “dogma” of the entire Enlightenment.

Enlightenment thinkers proposed that all humans should be accorded the Rights of Man, though the legitimacy itself of universal, equal rights was advanced by several varieties of argument within the Enlightenment. John Locke, for example, as Hughes explains, argued for universal rights on the grounds that in the human state of nature, as created by God before civilization, we were given possession of our bodies. All humans, therefore, possess these natural rights equally, and interference with individual rights violates natural and divine law. Thomas Jefferson’s statement in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” rested upon this logic.

Read More Read More

U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II Interviewed by Nikola Danaylov of Singularity.FM

U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II Interviewed by Nikola Danaylov of Singularity.FM

logo_bgGennady Stolyarov II
Nikola Danaylov

On March 31, 2018, Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party, was interviewed by Nikola Danaylov, a.k.a. Socrates, of Singularity.FM. A synopsis, audio download, and embedded video of the interview can be found on Singularity.FM here. You can also watch the YouTube video recording of the interview here.

Apparently this interview, nearly three hours in length, broke the record for the length of Nikola Danaylov’s in-depth, wide-ranging conversations on philosophy, politics, and the future.  The interview covered both some of Mr. Stolyarov’s personal work and ideas, such as the illustrated children’s book Death is Wrong, as well as the efforts and aspirations of the U.S. Transhumanist Party. The conversation also delved into such subjects as the definition of transhumanism, intelligence and morality, the technological Singularity or Singularities, health and fitness, and even cats. Everyone will find something of interest in this wide-ranging discussion.

The U.S. Transhumanist Party would like to thank its Director of Admissions and Public Relations, Dinorah Delfin, for the outreach that enabled this interview to happen.

To help advance the goals of the U.S. Transhumanist Party, as described in Mr. Stolyarov’s comments during the interview, become a member for free, no matter where you reside. Click here to fill out a membership application.

Pluslectic – The Dialectic of Positive Feedback – Article by Pedro Villanueva

Pluslectic – The Dialectic of Positive Feedback – Article by Pedro Villanueva


Pedro Villanueva

Editor’s Note: In this guest article, Pedro Villanueva outlines a new concept of pluslectic philosophy, which endeavors to be a method of thinking and forward-looking feedback (feedforward) which would characterize future advanced civilizations of enhanced humans. The U.S. Transhumanist Party publishes this article to motivate thought regarding how philosophical systems would need to evolve in order to recognize, characterize, and provide ethical guidance in a world of enhanced, augmented “plus-humans” – i.e., transhumans. This article was originally written in Spanish. The author’s translation from Spanish to English was edited further in a way that sought to preserve and reflect the author’s intent while restructuring various sentences to reflect the English rules of grammar. 

~ Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party, January 14, 2018

What is the pluslectic? The term stems from the Latin “plus”, signifying “more”, “added”, and “positive”.

A philosophical method that differs from the classical dialectic of Hegel and Marx, pluslectic philosophy values the input of the positive facts of growth throughout the world.

First think what happens with society and history. Our world over time since the beginning of civilization has been almost dystopian, as said Slavoj Zizek, […] “The real thing is a grain of sand that prevents us from a functioning unimpeded; a shock traumatic that disrupts the balance of the symbolic universe of the subject.” [1]

With the development of capitalism, develops also nihilism; it refers to a “belief” or faith that all values are meaningless or useless and that nothing can be really known or communicated, since humans can never know the truth and should leave social deception.

Nihilists believe in these 3 things:

1. There is not reasonable proof of the existence of a “supreme ruler” or a “creator”.

2. The “moral truth” is unknown.

3. The universal ethics is impossible.

Nietzsche says the following: “What matter to me others? Others are only human. Be superior to humanity by the force, by the temple, for contempt… ” [2]

In the 20th century and early 21st century, there has deepened the social disorientation and the existence of a society without sense, with the philosophy of the postmodernism of Lyotard. Lipovetsky examines a “postmodern” society marked, according to him, by a separation of the public sphere, and at the same time a loss of the sense of the large collective institutions (social and political) and “open” culture based on the regulation of human relations. Grace, hedonism, customization of the processes of socialization, permissive education, sexual liberation, focus on mood all characterize such a society.

This vision of society poses a neoindividualism of a narcissistic type and, moreover, what Lipovetsky called “the second individualist revolution”. The Post-Structuralists, with the deconstruction approach of Derrida, and Paul Virilio, with his thought of the aesthetics of disappearance where speed rules in the political, economic and cultural realms of human existence, are examples of this phenomenon.

I’ll explain the evolution of the concept of modern dialectic in the main figures of the philosophers Fitche, Hegel and Marx.

For Johann Gottlieb Fichte, I, the subject, is derived from all and the logical principles logical of identity and denial, to assert oneself begets opposition – “not me” – and both are subordinated to a principle of total unity. As the self comes into contradiction with himself and opposition to the “not me”, it eliminates this opposition by limiting both flows in an endless process, which is formulated in the dialectic triad: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. [3]

The German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel applies the term “dialectic” to his philosophical system and its logic focused on the future, contradiction, and change, which replaces the principles of identity and non-contradiction, by the incessant transformation of things and the unity of opposites. Hegel thought that the evolution of the Idea occurs through a dialectical process, i.e., a concept confronts its opposite and as a result of this conflict, rises a third synthesis. The synthesis is more loaded with truth than the previous two opposites. The work of Hegel is based on an idealistic conception of a universal mind that, through evolution, aims to reach the highest limit of self-consciousness and freedom. [4]

The German philosopher Karl Marx applied the concept of dialectic to the social and economic processes. The so-called dialectical materialism of Marx is often considered as a revision of the Hegelian system. This proposed a solution to a widespread problem of economic ends through three concepts: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The first was the source of the problem in this property of the  capital concentrated in the bourgeois class. The second, proletarian, class, the creator of the value with their work, was stripped of all means of production. These two, according to Marx, will give as a synthesis communism, the social ownership of the means of production. [5]

Let’s bring to the discussion general systems theory and its importance. The advance of technology exposes the complexity of general systems theory when compared to the modern dialectic.

The general systems theory was conceived by Ludwig von Bertalanffy in the 1940s, in order to form a practical model for conceptualizing the phenomena that the mechanistic reduction of the classical approach to science could not explain. In particular, general systems theory seems to provide a unifying theoretical framework for the natural sciences and the social sciences, needing in so doing to employ concepts such as “organization”, “whole”, “globalization”, and “dynamic interaction”; the linear is replaced by the circular. None of this was easily understandable by the analytical methods of the pure sciences. The individual lost importance in favor of the interdisciplinary approach. [6]

During the 1930s, Wiener worked with doctors and engineers and examined the parallels between human beings and electrical systems. As a result of such research, important concepts of feedback were developed, with the researchers studying more closely those systems that incorporated them.

These concepts of feedback, by which information was introduced to machines, led to the emergence of Cybernetics as the adaptation different from the mechanistic theory. The circularity and feedback processes are passed to the common elements of entire system, and Wiener called them “anti-entropic local phenomena”.

The behavior of a driver’s car on a road would be a clear example of negative feedback, since the driver would receive information from the limits of the road that could produce correcting deviations with the steering wheel. The thermostat would be another example of negative feedback, to which we referred above.

Any feedback would take into account the information on past actions, and with them would determine further actions to follow, creating a structure more complex than the linear or circular causality.

About Feedback

In this type of chain, each link is modified and changes its interaction, and this modification occurs in a circular process known as feedback loop (feedback loop).

We can find examples of the previously articulated concept. Thus, a spider that paralyzes a fly with its stinger is involved in a process of spending a fixed amount of power from “a” to “b”; a jellyfish stinging a human hand can participate in a feedback loop from “a” to “b” and “b” (hand stung) back to “a” (in the form of circle). In the first model the effect of “a” on “b” is not returned to the system (a + b); in the second, the message part of the affected “b” (production) and returned to the system (a + b) as feed-back (received power). The general systems theory holds that transactions are circular and create spirals of exchange that become progressively more complex.

Feedback can be positive or negative.

Positive feedback: Growth of differences – “snowball” – when left to operate, leads to the destruction of the system.

Negative feedback (e.g., a thermostat): Leads to an adaptive behavior or having a purpose, a purpose.

In both cases, there is an anointing of transfer by means of which the received energy is converted into the result, which, in turn, is reintroduced into the system as information about the result.

In the case of negative feedback, the system uses this information to activate its homeostatic mechanisms and to reduce the deviation of the production system and thus maintain a “steady state”.

In the case of positive feedback, the information is used to activate the mechanisms of growth (morphogenic mechanisms) that lead to a disruption of homeostasis and a movement toward change – i.e., the positive feedback serves to increase the deviation of the production.

Therefore, when a system uses negative feedback, the system is auto-corrects and returns to the initial state (i.e., does not change). When a system uses positive feedback, the system goes to another state (change).

Andréi Korotáyev (Андрей Витальевич Коротаев, born in 1961) is an anthropologist, economist, historian, and sociologist, with important contributions to the world system theory and mathematical models of social and economic macrodynamics.

Andrey Korotayev’s major contributions belong to four areas: mathematical models of the dynamics of social, economic, and historical phenomena (cliodynamics).

In the field of cliodynamics, Korotayev proposed one of the most convincing explanations for the doomsday argument of Heinz von Foerster.

In collaboration with his colleagues Artemi Malkov and Daria Khaltourina, Andrey Korotayev showed that, until the 1970s, the hyperbolic growth of the  world population was accompanied by a hyperbolic growth of the second degree of the world’s GDP, from which developed a series of mathematical models which both described this phenomenon as the theory of world system, the correlation between the hyperbolic growth of the world population and the hyperbolic of second degree of global GDP growth, observed until the early 1970s, corresponds to a  positive feedback. (Positive feedback is one of the mechanisms of  feedback by which outcomes or outputs of a system cause cumulative effects at the entrance, in contrast with the negative feedback, where the output causes subtractive effects at the entrance. Contrary to what you may believe, positive feedback is not always desirable, since the “positive” adjective refers to the mechanism, rather than the result.) The non-linear second-order relationship between demographic growth and technological development can be explained according to the following sequence:

•→Increased technological growth, growing the load capacity of the planet → population growth → more people → more potential inventors → acceleration of technological growth → acceleration of the increase of the carrying capacity of the planet → faster population growth → acceleration of the increase of potential inventors → faster technological growth → increasing the capacity of the Earth to support people… and so on. On the other hand, Korotayev’s research has shown that since 1970 the world system never develops hyperbolically; its development diverges more and more from the “regime of inflation” and currently is moving “away from singularity”, rather than “toward singularity.”

Marshall Goldsmith (born March 20, 1949) is an American leadership coach and author of management-related literature. He pioneered the personalized use of the FeedForward as a leadership development tool. The FeedForward assessment tool was created by Marshall Goldsmith with the intention of providing to individuals, teams, and organizations suggestions that help them, in the future, to make a positive change in their behavior. There is a fundamental problem with all types and forms of feedback: focus on the past, on what has already happened, not on the infinite variety of opportunities that could happen in the future. As such, the feedback can be limited and static, rather than dynamic and expansive. The FeedForward of Marshall Goldsmith helps you to predict and to focus on a positive future, not on a frustrated past. In training athletes using ‘feedforward’ (future feedback), the basketball players are taught to see the ball going into the ring and imagine the perfect shot. To give you ideas on how you can be even more successful, the FeedForward evaluative tool from Marshall Goldsmith can increase your chances of success in the future.

Marshall Goldsmith Library:

The pluslectic method is converted input, based on the theory of the system and concepts such as positive feedback, the feedforward, and Korotayev front-loading. The dialectical process evolves through concepts, hypotheses, ideas, and where the initial step is always positive (feedforward), accompanied with growth within a system of positive feedback, where the outcome of a positive feedback is one greater amplification which makes a small signal into a major change in the status of the system. Amplification generally grows in exponential systems in a first-order or second-order hyperbolic way.So evolution creates breaks in a positive and fast way, leading to shifts from one system to another system. Such systems are open to differences and are not controlled by negative feedback (which characterizes closed systems), where is the entropy of the system common.

The pluslectic is a philosophical view of how to operate a model of thinking of high civilizations of aliens or humans in the future, which would tell you as plus-humans, if this condition occurs with huge advances in engineering biogenetics, to reduce all the emotions and negative thoughts, where even before any negative events occur, humans would be capable of pre-feeding positively, with a vision of feedforward.

The pluslectic is a concept that is defined as the paradigm for highly developed post-humans, as opposed to the concept of dialecic from the 19th century, and the ideas of the 20th century, still in the generation of the great tales of humankind. Post-modernism and late modernity during the early 21st century are in crisis of change, setting the stage for the birth of new concepts oriented toward the future.

Images by Pedro Villanueva: Image #1 is his symbol for the Pluslectric; Image #2 is his artistic visionary representation of the concept.


[1]  The Sublime Object of Ideology (1989). Slavoj Zizek.

[2]  The Antichrist. Friedrich Nietzsche.

[3]. Basement of all the Doctrine of Science (1784). Johann Gottlieb Fitche.

[4] The Phenomenology of Spirit (1807). G. W. Friedrich Hegel.

[5] Capital (1867). Karl Marx.

[6] General System Theory: Foundations,  Development, Applications (1968). George Braziller.


Korotayev A., Malkov A., Khaltourina D. Introduction to Social Macrodynamics. Secular Cycles and Millennial Trends. Moscú, Russia Publishers, 2006

Korotayev A., Malkov A., Khaltourina D. Introduction to Social Macrodynamics: Compact Macromodels of the World System Growth. Moscow: Russia Publishers, 2006;

Korotayev A. V. A Compact Macromodel of World System Evolution // Journal of 
World-Systems Research 11/1 (2005): 79–93.

Markov A., Korotayev A.Phanerozoic marine biodiversity follows a hyperbolic trend // Palaeoworld. Volume 16, Issue 4, December 2007, Pages 311-318;

Markov A., Korotayev A. Hyperbolic growth of marine and continental biodiversity through the Phanerozoic and community evolution // Journal of General Biology. Volume 69, 2008. N 3, pp. 175–194

Pedro Villanueva wasborn in Havana, 1974. He graduated from the Academy of Fine Arts in San Alejandro. He writes in an approach to thought known as Pluslectic, which is in line with today’s world and the vision towards the future.

Pedro Villanueva underwent a study bootcamp with FounderSpace in San Francisco USA. He lives in the Chilean Patagonia, Punta Arenas. Building upon the ideas of Vinton Cerf, his research work aims at the creation of an interplanetary network called “InterPlanetNet”, which aims to extend the Internet into outer space. Pedro Villanueva works on the idea of the FaceSpace, a social network of space.

Read More Read More

Against War, the Greatest Enemy of Progress – Presentation by Gennady Stolyarov II

Against War, the Greatest Enemy of Progress – Presentation by Gennady Stolyarov II


Gennady Stolyarov II

Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Chief Executive of the Nevada Transhumanist Party, articulates the view that war is not acceptable by any parties, against any parties, for any stated or actual justification.

This presentation was delivered to the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) Chapter at University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), on April 24, 2017.

Read “Antipolemus, or, the Plea of Reason, Religion, and Humanity against War” by Desiderius Erasmus.

Read the Wikipedia page on the Free Syrian Army, in particular the section entitled “Allegations of war crimes against FSA-affiliated groups”, here.

Visit the Nevada Transhumanist Party Facebook group and see its Constitution and Bylaws.

Become a member of the U.S. Transhumanist Party for free here.