U.S. Transhumanist Party General Discussion Thread for June 2017

U.S. Transhumanist Party General Discussion Thread for June 2017


The purpose of this post is to facilitate member comments pertaining to transhumanism and the U.S. Transhumanist Party, which might not specifically fit the subjects of any other post or article on the U.S. Transhumanist Party website. This is the place for members to offer suggestions or converse about any areas of emerging technologies and their political, moral, societal, cultural, and esthetic implications. The general discussion thread is also an ideal location to suggest or propose platform planks that may be considered for future platform voting.

The U.S. Transhumanist Party will endeavor to open one of these general comment threads per month. This comment thread pertains to the month of June 2017.

Type in your comments below. Please note that, to protect against spambots, the first comment by any individual will be moderated. After passing moderation, a civil commenter should be able to post comments without future moderation – although we cannot guarantee that the technical aspect of this functionality will work as intended 100% of the time.

30 thoughts on “U.S. Transhumanist Party General Discussion Thread for June 2017

  1. I would like to get suggestions from scientists and other anti-ageing and transhumanism experts , how and what kind of experiments i could perform on myself in the field of anti-ageing and transhumanism.

    1. Perhaps an avenue where you may look for experiments is in the biohack / grinder sphere. https://forum.biohack.me/ is one such forum.
      Of course, use caution and reason if you decide to attempt such experiments. 🙂

      Asking scientists and experts questions could be really interesting. Do you think this could be part of something like a Q&A session?

  2. A plank suggestion that would be an addition to the effort to create a more transparent government. To the best of my knowledge there is no such law in place.

    The U.S. Transhumanist Party supports efforts to create a reasonable minimum time frame between the proposal of a bill and the voting procedure. To ensure a reasonable time frame is proportional to the number of pages of a proposed bill, a time period per x amount of pages could be adopted. For example, a 24 hour period within a working week per 20 pages to ensure all member of Congress involved have sufficient time to read through and study its implications.

    This would accomplish that a bill can not be introduced shortly before the voting process. It hopefully would have the added side effect that proposals might become more concise as the length of a bill would influence the consideration time.

    In addition to this, after the proposal has been submitted, no change may be made to the proposal to prevent changing the substance of a proposal.

    Regarding fully informing a jury
    The U.S. Transhumanist supports efforts to ensure a jury is fully informed on its rights and responsibilities, including jury nullification, as well as prevent false claims being made regarding the rights and responsibilities of the jury.

    This might be a contentious plank proposal, but I’ll explain.
    The U.S. Transhumanist Party support efforts to severely reduce the U.S. nuclear stockpile, and replace or transfer part of this stockpile, say 10% but maybe even just 1%, to mobile nuclear platforms such as submarines. The current “need” for the nuclear stockpile as it is in part exists because an enemy may target the stationary nuclear bombs directly. Having a largely hidden mobile fleet of nuclear bombs would make this much more difficult for any enemy to target the nuclear arsenal, while still maintaining the nuclear deterrent option in sufficient capacity. This would further have the effect that it could lower the budget required to maintain the nuclear stockpile as it could be drastically downsized.

    1. Greetings, Martin.

      Regarding your first two proposals, I will include their substance within the next exposure period. On the portion that “after the proposal has been submitted, no change may be made to the proposal to prevent changing the substance of a proposal”, I would like to proposal an alternative that would require any proposed amendments to be explicitly discussed in a public forum with the same degree of thorough consideration that was allowed for the original proposal. The reason for this is that sometimes amendments may be justified if discussions of the original proposal led to the recognition by both proponents and opponents of the original language that some “middle ground” might be possible that salvages the aims of the proponents but also addresses the concerns of the opponents. With that being said, amendments do carry a risk of the original proposal being “gutted” and replaced with something entirely different – or being subtly transformed into a measure with quite different substantive effects. Therefore, transparency of discussion and close public scrutiny of amendments would certainly be justified. I will craft a wording option to convey these goals.

      Regarding the last proposal (on relocating the nuclear stockpile to mobile platforms), my concern is with regard to how this could be rendered consistent with our already-adopted position in Article III, Section IV, on complete nuclear disarmament as rapidly as possible. In practice, we would still favor incremental reductions in the nuclear stockpile as well – and perhaps pragmatic compromises that would convince politicians to accept those reductions. If there were a proposed compromise on the table to reduce the existing nuclear stockpile by 99% but place the rest of the missiles on submarines in undisclosed locations, I might consider that if I were in a negotiating role. The challenge that would remain would be how to protect the world from an accidental or intentional but unjustified nuclear launch by the United States (for instance, in the event of a false alarm about an impending attack by another nuclear power). So the key question in my mind is whether this type of arrangement would be a true policy position, or rather a pragmatic stance that might be adopted if it was seen as advancing us incrementally toward our true policy position that complete disarmament is desirable.

      Gennady Stolyarov II,
      Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party

      1. I think you are right and this is indeed a good step on part of discussing proposals. My, hypothetical, fear was that of a sneaky politician basically using a camouflaged bait and switch by proposing a bill that everyone would vote for, and then changing the content just enough to get whatever it is they wanted passed without people knowing in time. Of course it could also be that someone makes a change with less nefarious but with equal impact its outcome.

        I agree that it is more pragmatic. Until the entire nuclear stockpile on the planet is being disarmed we will, realistically, have nuclear weapons too, with the intent of it being a deterrent. I indeed agree that a president gone insane could unleash the proverbial apocalypse. This is however also why we support putting limitations on a single person’s ability, namely the president to ‘first strike’. I fully agree on the end-goal of nuclear disarmament, but also think that we, all Party members, should agree on reasoned steps in between before we are there.
        Accidental counter launch is a possibility, but as the response time increases due to Anti-Ballistic Missile systems (ABM) such as THAAD, the need for instant response should decrease, giving more time to ponder a counter attack. Another intermediate step could be to support improved intelligence gathering systems that can more accurately identify missiles and their payloads.
        In that sense I think it first needs to be proven to the people that a nuclear deterrent isn’t necessary, and to potential enemies that launching a nuclear warhead is pointless.
        Does that make sense?

  3. Another proposal, to maximize freedom, and minimize wasteful government spending.
    The U.S. Transhumanist Party supports the right for individuals to have autonomy over, and utilize their body to earn money, including prostitution, as long as this is from one’s own free will (e.g. not under duress) and the person is not endangering the health or well being of others.

    This would give those who wish to engage in prostitution the safety and protection of the law, for example that they may report abuse, and are less prone to being exploited. It would also open the possibility to unionize if they wish to do so.
    Furthermore it would decrease government spending on what is ultimately a ‘moral crusade’.

    Reason did a thorough article on the latest proposed bills to combat ‘prostitution’ which is now indiscriminately lumped under sex trafficking, because that garners more sympathy and support.

  4. I sent a proposal former on e-mail in order to set up an own cryonic institute. Alcor and Kriorus are very expensive and the financing options are not acceptable.

    Woud be ready to start a program .



        1. That is a good point. This is something that could be useful, a ‘hall of voted down planks’. Although it does sound dramatic this way.
          It could indeed prevent the same idea from popping up over and over, but also show transparency.

  5. It’s been a topic of discussion multiple times I’m sure; should a politicians electronic statements be considered official statements as opposed to casual.

    Given the nightly Presidential tweets and upcoming legislation to bind him to those statements in an official manner, I think now is a good time to announce a position on electronic statements, merging of physical and digital self, and how we should apply them.

    Current proposed legislation wants to include “social media” in what is recorded from the president. But social media, as we know it , may become extinct. A broader policy should be proposed. Also, we need to address who this covers. Any federal government representative? State? Local?

    1. Hi Ryan,
      You are entirely free to propose a plank regarding politicians electronic statements, and more.
      Do you have an idea? We’d love to have your input on the matter.

      1. Something along the lines of:
        Any statement made by an elected official and/or public servant available to be heard, read, or otherwise understood in a public setting, physical or digital, shall be considered a part of the public record and treated as an official statement of their office and position.

        1. That is very well stated!
          Might I suggest one addition, namely that the statement was made available by the public official to the public. This to avoid confusion that if someone shared a “private message” of a public official and it thus becoming ‘publicly available’ that this message would not be deemed public record, or an official statement.
          Does that make sense? and of course, would you agree?

          1. Yeah, when a public official makes a statement in a public forum and defining what a public forum is. Of course leaks of private information happen, but that isn’t the intended scope. Also, considering the privacy, sousveillance, and government transparency planks we have discussed already, I think the private statement side of things is pretty well addressed.

  6. Another proposal to consider.

    State and federal governments should establish an AI analysis system for measuring risk of proposed legislation. An impartial look at what legislation could cause harm or unintended consequences. Submitted policies would receive a 0-100 score and state what possible negative impacts may result.

    The reasoning behind this is pretty simple. Humans are emotional and short sighted. Most of us don’t stop to consider the widest possibilities of a proposal. It also helps to reduce the negative impacts on lobbying and corporate backing.

    This system should be publically accessible for submissions and for security audit.

    This is not intended to create or enact laws. Simply a tool to measure risk vs reward.

    1. This is an interesting idea, but I’d be afraid that this assessment system would become the SAT of politics. What I mean is that politicians will become really good at creating policies that score as close to 100 as possible so they can show the country just how much they avoid risk, but otherwise may make no sense.
      There probably are already some risk assessment software out there, but not as one AI-type entity. This is probably because assessing all possible unintended consequences of an action will result in nothing happening as the number of variables will be astronomical.
      I think you are on to something here though, but not necessarily through a monolithic AI type idea.

    2. I had a similar, more radical, idea regarding a fully automated, self-correcting AI that, in addition to measuring risk of proposed legislation, would implement it on its own. Your idea seems more feasible, however, and more in line with what most people would be comfortable with.

  7. One more idea. And this is more for Gennady to interview and help start the discussion. Talking to Ionat Zurr from the Tissue Culture and Art project. They have tackled some relevant topics like how to classify lab created organism and Zurr is (according to his bio) researching the ethical and epistemological implications of wet biology art practices.

    1. Actually, I guess I call dibs. Just got in touch with her and she’s willing to take my questions. I’d like to publish the transcript on here if possible.

  8. SCOTUS just agreed to a hear Gill vs Whitford, which is about whether Gerrymandering is unconstitutional.

    Regardless of the outcome of this hearing, I would like to propose the following plank;
    The U.S. Transhumanist Party strongly opposes the possibility for any political party to determine the boundaries and borders of any voting district. The U.S. Transhumanist Party supports efforts to have the potential of district redistribution, when necessary due to migration for example, to be left to an automated system such as an AI designed for this task.

  9. I had proposed this as a Plank for May, but it didn’t make it on the ballot.

    The U.S. Transhumanist Party supports efforts to restrict and limit civil asset forfeiture laws, and other laws that assist law enforcement agencies in circumventing the Fourth Amendment such as asset seizure, detainment or arrest beyond the legal scope without being charged.

    I recalled suggesting this after reading Justice Clarence Thomas made a statement regarding Civil asset forfeiture laws: http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/21/clarence-thomas-attacks-civil-asset-forf

  10. In light of disabled people being removed from their wheel chairs by law enforcement during a protest today, we need to come out with strong language condemning the incident and comprehensive policy protecting the rights of people who cannot physically defend themselves against hostile and oppressive governments/law enforcement.

    Even though the Americans with Disabilities Act states that removing a person from their wheelchair, even by law enforcement, is kidnapping there clearly needs to be more protections to our most vulnerable of citizens.

    Reference the video in the article posted below.

    1. Greetings, Ryan. Please proceed in writing the statement you envision and use our “Submit a Post” feature to submit it. I will review it once it is submitted and will most likely publish it after some light stylistic edits.

      Gennady Stolyarov II,
      Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party

  11. Two more proposals
    The U.S. Transhumanist Party supports efforts to remove the possibility for a President to sign an international agreement among two or more nations by executive order. This would prevent a President from engaging in international affairs without support from the Congress, and likewise would make it moore difficult to back out of an international agreement as support from Congress would have to exist to back out of an agreement. This would furthermore ensure that the U.S. becomes a more trustworthy nation in the eyes of the international community.

    President Obama signed by executive order the Paris agreement, which has similarly been undone by President Trump. Whether we agree with the actions of either, such agreements should not be entered by the power of one person, and likewise should not be able to be undone by one person.

    The U.S. Transhumanist Party supports efforts to create a framework for an international or world passport. This framework could, for example go through the U.N. and the passport could be valid only for those countries who have proven to meet the standards, set by participating countries, required to ensure safety, e.g. The E.U. has an ID valid within its borders, and the US has a similar agreement with Canada. Imagining these combined might show that it is not as farfetched or alien.

    As the world becomes ever more interconnected through internet and other modes of communication, and the need for labor is often across borders, and people’s desire to explore other countries and cultures, the national passport as we know it is a very archaic way to ask for permission to enter another country. Globalization is likely to happen whether we approve or not. The word globalization however has a bad name mainly due to exploitation by conglomerates and multinationals, yet average citizens have to make tremendous efforts to travel to friendly countries.

Leave a Reply

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