Skip to content
U.S. Transhumanist Party – Official Website
  • Home
  • Posts
  • Values
  • Platform
  • Leadership
  • Advisors
  • Candidates
  • Highlights
  • FAQ
  • States & Allies
  • Free Membership
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Search Icon

U.S. Transhumanist Party – Official Website

U.S. Transhumanist Party – PUTTING SCIENCE, HEALTH, & TECHNOLOGY AT THE FOREFRONT OF AMERICAN POLITICS

U.S. Transhumanist Party Official Statement on the Istvan/Weiss Articles Regarding Transhumanism and Libertarianism in “The American Conservative” Magazine and Related Matters

U.S. Transhumanist Party Official Statement on the Istvan/Weiss Articles Regarding Transhumanism and Libertarianism in “The American Conservative” Magazine and Related Matters

August 20, 2017 Gennady Stolyarov II Comments 1 comment

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II


Recently a large amount of controversy has been generated, and questions have been raised regarding the compatibility or lack thereof among transhumanism, libertarianism, and conservatism – as well as certain positions which have been commonly attributed to transhumanism as a philosophy and as a movement. The controversy was generated by an exchange between Zoltan Istvan, founder and former Chairman of the United States Transhumanist Party (but now our Political and Media Advisor with no official decision-making role), and Kai Weiss in the pages of The American Conservative Magazine. Mr. Istvan’s article, “The Growing World of Libertarian Transhumanism” (August 8, 2017), made the case for an essential compatibility between libertarian and transhumanist ideas. Mr. Weiss countered with a disparaging article, “Transhumanism Is Not Libertarian, It’s an Abomination” – a piece which largely critiques a contrived caricature of transhumanism and does not genuinely engage views which most, many, or – in some cases – any self-identified transhumanists actually hold. In response to some of Mr. Weiss’s assertions, Mr. Istvan released a post on his Facebook profile which reinforced and endeavored to explain some of Mr. Istvan’s personal views regarding parenting (which he correctly and prominently clarified as “not an official platform policy in any way” and “just a philosophical stance”).

Unfortunately, the exchange between Mr. Istvan and Mr. Weiss has generated a maelstrom of public reaction, which largely consists of a feedback loop of misunderstandings. The purpose of this official statement, in my capacity as Chairman of the United States Transhumanist Party, is to dispel any such misunderstandings and to elucidate the positions of the Transhumanist Party on the nexus of issues involved. These positions arise out of the official Platform adopted thus far by the U.S. Transhumanist Party’s members in the course of multiple rounds of voting, and should be distinguished from the personal views of any individual, including Mr. Istvan and myself.

First, it is important to convey that the United States Transhumanist Party greatly esteems Mr. Istvan and owes him a debt of gratitude for founding the Party and continuing to offer valuable advice. However, it is also important to emphasize that the Transhumanist Party is not the Libertarian Party – in any way, shape, or form. Mr. Istvan’s candidacy for Governor of California as a Libertarian for the 2018 election has no relation or affiliation with the United States Transhumanist Party in any manner; it is, rather, his personal endeavor – although, on a personal level, I wish Mr. Istvan all the best. No statements made by Mr. Istvan as part of that Libertarian Party candidacy can be imputed to the Transhumanist Party or the ideas broadly constituting the transhumanist movement. Mr. Istvan himself clearly recognizes this and has acted appropriately to make the requisite distinctions. It surprises the leadership of the United States Transhumanist Party, however, that there persists a common public conflation between Mr. Istvan’s Libertarian campaign and the policies and positions of the Transhumanist Party under our present administration. We will endeavor to dispel this conflation with all the means at our disposal.

While many Transhumanists identify as (small “l”) libertarians philosophically and politically, other Transhumanists would not so identify. The Transhumanist Party is unique in contemporary politics precisely because of its transpartisan nature. We desire to transcend conventional political distinctions and so welcome libertarians, socialists, republicans, democrats, centrists, apolitical individuals, and anybody else – however they identify themselves – who would be willing to ally with us to craft a better future. In developing our Platform, we solicited the input of all our members and continue to do so. The result is a set of positions different from any established political party or conventional political outlook – positions that will continue to be refined and expanded as our membership grows and new perspectives, voices, and rational analyses are added. The Transhumanist Party seeks to build bridges with creatively minded, forward-thinking individuals of a variety of persuasions. We resolutely refuse, however, to be a “feeder” organization into any established political party, the Libertarian Party included. The Transhumanist Party is not intended to funnel people to serve as reinforcements for one or another of the myriad well-known players in the contemporary political arena. Rather, all of our members shall remain free to be and express their true intellectual selves, acknowledge their differences, and explore opportunities for collaboration nonetheless. We therefore are free to comment on the work of Mr. Istvan or any other thinker objectively and in a manner that acknowledges strengths and weaknesses alike.

Mr. Istvan’s article was commendable in its attempt to build bridges between transhumanists and libertarians. Mostly his article is an overview of transhumanism as a movement, its history, its recent surge in popularity, Mr. Istvan’s personal background, and some questions that Mr. Istvan poses regarding the future “civil rights battle of the century” that “may be looming because of coming transhumanist tech.” Some of the issues Mr. Istvan raises find strong support in the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform. For instance, Mr. Istvan asks, “Should we allow scientists to reverse aging, something researchers have already had success with in mice?” The U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform, contained in Article III of our Constitution, answers this with a resounding “Yes!”  Sections V, VI, and VIII of our platform specifically express support for life extension and the reversal of aging necessary to achieve it. The Transhumanist Bill of Rights, Version 2.0, expresses support for life extension in six of its Articles: III, IV, V, VI, VIII, and IX. However, there are other questions that Mr. Istvan poses, which, while interesting to consider, do not arise from any specific position in our Platform – e.g., abortion, sexbots, whether a “Jesus Singularity” is possible, or whether the human species should be renamed after sufficient cyborgization. It would be difficult, and likely impossible, for any subset of transhumanists to reach a consensus or even acceptable middle ground on these issues, although we understand that they will continue to be discussed. It is best, however, not to frame such matters as official Party positions – but rather to simply continue the conversation, as Mr. Istvan did by raising questions which may have many possible answers. But it is worth emphasizing that neither Transhumanists in particular nor (small “t”) transhumanists in general have any definitive, authoritative positions on these matters.

While Mr. Istvan’s work presents the need for discernment in distinguishing between his views and the positions of the Transhumanist Party, Mr. Weiss’s rejoinder is flawed on an entirely different scale. It is outright misleading and actually seeks to commit (small “l”) libertarians to positions that would not be compatible with liberty if thoroughly examined. Mr. Weiss states that “Transhumanism should be rejected by libertarians as an abomination of human evolution” – as if evolution were itself a moral value for humans or for the achievement of the ideals of liberty (rather than merely the process by which humans happened to arise or even, in its “natural” form, an obstacle to the flourishing and liberty of the individual – since individuals are dispensable from the standpoint of natural selection). Mr. Weiss further imports citations from some of Mr. Istvan’s prior articles (not his original editorial in The American Conservative) to allege that Mr. Istvan, and by implication all transhumanists, support eugenics, as a result of Mr. Istvan’s statement that he “cautiously endorse[s] the idea of licensing parents, a process that would be little different than getting a driver’s license.” To reach the conclusion that transhumanists support eugenics, Mr. Weiss needed to have made several non sequiturs which reach far beyond anything Mr. Istvan actually wrote.

Yet Mr. Istvan’s subsequent Facebook post appears to be a reinforcement of this position, wherein Mr. Istvan seeks to justify it by the statement that “I do not want homeless people, severely mentally disabled people (like down syndrome), or crack addicts having kids if I will end up paying higher taxes so the government must take care of them.” However, Mr. Istvan also offers a mitigating point to this view by noting that he also “deeply support[s] a libertarian version of a basic income to help the poor and hardship-burdened out, but [he does] not and will not support a lack of responsibility on a parent’s part.”

The United States Transhumanist Party takes a decidedly different view on parenting, children, and reproductive freedom than either Mr. Istvan’s proposal to license parents, or Mr. Weiss’s highly disproportionate and unfounded allegation of eugenicist tendencies. All things considered, most (small “l”) libertarians will find the Transhumanist Party’s actual positions on children and childbearing to be far more palatable than either of the positions of Mr. Istvan and Mr. Weiss.

Article XII of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights, Version 2.0, states, in part, that “All sentient entities are entitled to reproductive freedom, including through novel means such as the creation of mind clones, monoparent children, or benevolent artificial general intelligence.” If anything, the Transhumanist Party embraces novel techniques that would render it easier for many persons to have children – for instance, without the need to find a partner of the opposite gender.

Section VI of the United States Transhumanist Party Platform – an extensive section on morphological freedom – specifically states that “The United States Transhumanist Party is focused on the rights of all sapient individuals to do as they see fit with themselves and their own reproductive choices.” The last paragraph of Section VI clarifies that “The United States Transhumanist Party recognizes the ethical obligations of sapient beings to be the purview of those individual beings, and holds that no other group, individual, or government has the right to limit those choices – including […] reproductive choice, reproductive manipulation, […] or other possible modifications, enhancements, or morphological freedoms. It is only when such choices directly infringe upon the rights of other sapient beings that the United States Transhumanist Party will work to develop policies to avoid potential infringements.”

Accordingly, the Transhumanist Party sees reproduction as a fundamentally individual choice. Whether a given individual chooses not to reproduce at all, or to reproduce prolifically, or to pursue any intermediate course, is not a matter to be coercively regimented, restricted, or subjected to special permits. While it could readily be acknowledged that some circumstances are more conducive to the effective and beneficent upbringing of children than others, it nonetheless remains the province of individual judgment to determine whether a given set of circumstances is sufficient in this regard. The influence of civil society, not coercive political solutions, may be a more suitable means to encourage individuals to make decisions in full consideration of the potential consequences.

Some commentators have lamented (as in the premise of the 2006 Mike Judge film Idiocracy) that individuals who would have made decent parents often abstain from reproduction out of an abundance of caution and concern – precisely the traits that would make them better parents – while those who do not consider the consequences of bringing a child into this world may therefore reproduce unthinkingly. It appears that the intention of Mr. Istvan is to address the latter concern and set forth some manner of prior restraint to such unthinking reproduction – and yet such prior restraints are never without unintended consequences. Any externally imposed system of prior restraint creates an inflexible bureaucratic machinery that must be navigated, and good people will inevitably fall through its cracks or be caught within its technicalities, such that self-evidently reasonable decisions will be thwarted needlessly. The important insight to prevent a parental licensing scheme, such as the one proposed by Mr. Istvan, is the recognition that no single, overarching set of rules, imposed on an entire population, can possibly filter out solely the “unsuitable” parents while allowing all of the “suitable” parents to do what they would have done anyway. Errors in both directions are inevitable; the former type of error would show the system to be ineffectual, while the latter type of error would be a travesty of justice.

Furthermore, the United States Transhumanist Party strongly supports children’s rights. In addition to Section LXII of our Platform, which “supports efforts to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to uphold the Rights of the Child as prescribed therein”, Section XXIII states that “The United States Transhumanist Party supports the rights of children to exercise liberty in proportion to their rational faculties and capacity for autonomous judgment. In particular, the United States Transhumanist Party strongly opposes all forms of bullying, child abuse, and censorship of intellectual self-development by children and teenagers.” Implied in this position is a thoroughgoing respect for children as individuals – not merely the products of their parents and the circumstances in which they find themselves. Children have rational faculties, they can exercise autonomous judgment, they can learn, they can improve themselves and rise above any sub-optimal conditions into which they were born.  To state that certain persons of limited means, low virtue, or myriad possible failures of character should not be permitted to have children, neglects the fact that children are distinct from their parents and are not fated to repeat their parents’ mistakes or to suffer under the yoke of their parents’ limitations. A genius can arise from the slums; a decent person can emerge from a troubled background. The will and determination of the individual child, and the subsequent adult, should not be disregarded or underestimated here! While, undeniably, hard circumstances pose barriers to the actualization of human potential, it is unconscionable for political restraints to forestall the very possibility that such barriers might be overcome, by declaring them to be insurmountable in advance and cutting off the potential for a life to emerge that might disprove that contention.

Far from a eugenicist perspective, the view of many transhumanists and of the Transhumanist Party is a fundamentally individualist position that rejects both genetic and environmental variants of determinism and emphasizes the autonomy of each individual person.

Mr. Weiss finds other aspersions to cast upon the transhumanists, for instance by alleging that they wish to create the equivalent of Leon Trotsky’s “New Soviet Man” – as if the goal itself of most humans rising to the heights of Aristotle, Goethe, or Mozart were reprehensible! If Mr. Weiss, as a self-identified libertarian, were consistent in this criticism, he would go so far as to condemn libertarianism’s own ambitions to reduce the size and scope of government, because, after all, Karl Marx’s end goal – for “the State to wither away” – is the same as that of many anarcho-capitalist libertarians today! Mr. Weiss makes the common fallacy of assuming that a particular goal is not worthwhile, simply because some people, who also committed reprehensible actions or held other fallacious views, happened to espouse that goal.

Mr. Weiss concludes his essay by stating that “Instead of seeing nature, the world and life overall as a means to get to know God, humans in the last centuries have become accustomed to seeing the world as something that is only there for humans to take and use for their own pleasures. Transhumanism would be the final step of this process: the conquest of death. You don’t have to be religious to find this abhorrent. As we have seen, it would be the end to all religion, to human cooperation overall, in all likelihood to liberty itself, and even the good-bye to humanity. It would be the starting point of the ultimate dystopia.”

We see in Mr. Weiss’s conclusion the underlying motive behind his critique of transhumanism, which is that he finds transhumanism to be somehow in conflict with his personal view of “nature, the world and life overall as a means to get to know God” – a goal which, in Mr. Weiss’s mind, is contrary to humans either pursuing “their own pleasures” or conquering death. This is far from a general libertarian position and seems, rather, to be inextricably entangled with Mr. Weiss’s own religious views. As such, his article would have been more forthrightly presented as a critique of transhumanism from the standpoint of a particular religious denomination or theological interpretation (however Mr. Weiss might classify his views in these regards), but not a libertarian critique of transhumanism – especially since most libertarians would strongly disagree with the notion of imposing a particular religious interpretation as a justification for thwarting progress or individual choice.

Contrary to Mr. Weiss’s assertions, transhumanism per se is not incompatible with religious belief, and there exist various strains of religious transhumanism today, as acknowledged in Section XXV of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform: “The United States Transhumanist Party welcomes both religious and non-religious individuals who support life extension and emerging technologies. The United States Transhumanist Party recognizes that some religious individuals and interpretations may be receptive to technological progress and, if so, are valuable allies to the transhumanist movement. On the other hand, the United States Transhumanist Party is also opposed to any interpretation of a religious doctrine that results in the rejection of reason, censorship, violation of individual rights, suppression of technological advancement, and attempts to impose religious belief by force and/or by legal compulsion.”

More importantly, whether or not one is religious, nothing about the conquest of death – the genuine aim of many transhumanists which Mr. Weiss seems most inclined to disparage – is abominable or contrary to liberty or contrary to the ability of any person to express any peaceful, non-coercive religious belief or practice. It is confounding to see Mr. Weiss assert that life extension would be the end of liberty (when only free human beings could pursue it, and their rights to pursue it would need to be recognized in order for it to be achieved), the end of cooperation (when life extension could only be achieved through major cooperation by leading scientists specialized in various areas of biology, medicine, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and related fields), or of humanity itself (when individual humans would be the ones living longer – often with the option to remain in a youthful but predominantly biological state).  Certainly, Mr. Weiss has offered no evidence to suggest that an “ultimate dystopia” would be generated by enabling people to live longer, more prosperous, more fulfilled lives – his straw-man characterizations notwithstanding.

Those who seek to understand transhumanist thought and Transhumanist political positions would do well to study the growing corpus of transhumanist literature, which, as Mr. Istvan validly points out, extends back to (at least) the 1980s, as well as to follow the work of the United States Transhumanist Party. While the Transhumanist Party is not exclusively libertarian in character, we also encourage individuals who hold libertarian views to see key complementarities with transhumanism – which may well describe the world which would emerge if individuals had the power to fully exercise their liberty to innovate and discover. Whether you identify as libertarian or as anything else, we welcome your input and participation in the Transhumanist Party if you have insights to contribute regarding how the human condition might be improved, and how our age-old limits and sufferings might be overcome.

Finally, the Transhumanist Party – while it shall endeavor to remain ecumenical and not explicitly align itself with either libertarianism, conservatism, or any ideologies that could be deemed the antitheses thereof – recognizes, contra Mr. Weiss, that individuals, such as readers of The American Conservative magazine, who identify either as libertarians, or as conservatives, or both, will be able to find many areas of affinity with transhumanism, properly understood. Although these are not official documents of the Transhumanist Party and are not necessarily representative of its positions, I encourage readers who are interested in discovering these affinities to read my older essays “Transhumanism as a Grand Conservatism” and “Political Priorities for Achieving Indefinite Life Extension: A Libertarian Approach” – which I mention here primarily to motivate thinking and discussion.

 

Gennady Stolyarov II, FSA, ACAS, MAAA, CPCU, ARe, ARC, API, AIS, AIE, AIAF

Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party

August 20, 2017


Announcements, Platform
children, Children's Rights, conservatism, eugenics, fallacies, Gennady Stolyarov II, Kai Weiss, libertarianism, misconceptions, parenting, progress, Religion, The American Conservative, Transhumanism, transpartisan, Zoltan Istvan

Post navigation

PREVIOUS
The Great Transhumanist Game – How to Win; How to Play and Not to Play – Videos by Gennady Stolyarov II
NEXT
LEAF Panel: How to Promote Longevity? ft. Drs. Aubrey de Grey, Alexandra Stolzing, Oliver Medvedik

One thought on “U.S. Transhumanist Party Official Statement on the Istvan/Weiss Articles Regarding Transhumanism and Libertarianism in “The American Conservative” Magazine and Related Matters”

  1. Hank Pellissier says:
    September 22, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    Great article Gennady — you are the right person to be in charge of this group now.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Social Media

Constitution of the U.S. Transhumanist Party

Transhumanist Bill of Rights – Version 3.0

U.S. Transhumanist Party Facebook Feed

Free Transhumanist Symbols

Guidelines for Community Conduct

SUBMIT A POST

Subject Categories

    - Life Extension
    - Artificial Intelligence
    - Space Colonization
    - Robotics
    - Biotechnology
    - Nanotechnology
    - Autonomous Vehicles
    - 3D Printing
    - Cryptocurrencies
    - Vertical Farming
    - Universal Basic Income
    - Existential Risk
    - Rationality

Hashtags

    #USTranshumanistParty, #TranshumanistParty, #TranshumanistPolitics, #TomRoss2024, #RossTwedt2024

Recent Posts

  • Why Is Trump So Intent on Sending Illegal Immigrant Noncriminals to Prison Camps in El Salvador? – Article by Alex Nowrasteh
  • Tribute to John Kerecz (1961 – 2025)
  • The Copenhagen Consensus – How to Feed the Hungry – Article by Zach Richardson
  • The Issue of Food – Article by Luis Arroyo
  • Results of Platform Vote #9 and Vote on Proposals on Investigations and Emergency Declarations; Adopted Sections of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Constitution
  • Official Ballot Options for Platform Vote #9 and Proposals on Investigations and Emergency Declarations
  • Gennady Stolyarov I and Gennady Stolyarov II Discuss the Progress of Information Technology (2019)
  • Immortality: My Quest and Reasons for Seeking an Indefinite Lifespan – Article by Albi Ndoni
  • U.S. Transhumanist Party General Discussion Thread for 2025
  • U.S. Transhumanist Party Statement on the Murder of Brian Thompson
  • News Regarding THPedia, the Transhumanist Encyclopedia for Everyone – Invitation to Contribute – Statement by Gennady Stolyarov II
  • The Transhumanist Council: A Worthy Effort for a New Umbrella Transhumanist Organization
  • Report on the Montana Right to Try Act – Analysis by Shamar White
  • U.S. Transhumanist Party Comments on the Citizen Petition by Age Reversal Unity to Declare Aging a Disease
  • U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman’s Eighth Anniversary Message
  • U.S. Transhumanist Party Statement on the Outcome of the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election
  • Preliminary Member-Reported Write-In Totals for Tom Ross and Daniel Twedt in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election
  • U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party Positions on 2024 Nevada Ballot Questions
  • Where to Write In Tom Ross for President of the United States – and How to Make Sure Your Vote Counts
  • Celebration of U.S. Transhumanist Party 10th Anniversary and International Longevity Month

Recent Comments

  • R. Nicholas Starr on U.S. Transhumanist Party General Discussion Thread for 2025
  • Luis Arroyo on Tribute to John Kerecz (1961 – 2025)
  • shamar on U.S. Transhumanist Party General Discussion Thread for 2025
  • Gennady Stolyarov II on U.S. Transhumanist Party General Discussion Thread for 2025
  • Theo Ibrahim on The Issue of Food – Article by Luis Arroyo

Archives

  • June 2025 (1)
  • May 2025 (1)
  • March 2025 (3)
  • February 2025 (1)
  • January 2025 (3)
  • December 2024 (2)
  • November 2024 (6)
  • October 2024 (3)
  • September 2024 (2)
  • August 2024 (5)
  • July 2024 (4)
  • June 2024 (3)
  • May 2024 (1)
  • March 2024 (1)
  • February 2024 (1)
  • January 2024 (8)
  • October 2023 (11)
  • September 2023 (6)
  • August 2023 (1)
  • July 2023 (4)
  • May 2023 (3)
  • April 2023 (3)
  • March 2023 (2)
  • February 2023 (12)
  • January 2023 (23)
  • December 2022 (2)
  • November 2022 (2)
  • October 2022 (3)
  • August 2022 (3)
  • July 2022 (2)
  • May 2022 (6)
  • March 2022 (3)
  • February 2022 (4)
  • January 2022 (7)
  • December 2021 (11)
  • November 2021 (4)
  • October 2021 (5)
  • September 2021 (2)
  • August 2021 (2)
  • July 2021 (3)
  • June 2021 (2)
  • May 2021 (6)
  • April 2021 (7)
  • March 2021 (4)
  • February 2021 (5)
  • January 2021 (6)
  • December 2020 (10)
  • November 2020 (4)
  • October 2020 (2)
  • September 2020 (1)
  • August 2020 (4)
  • July 2020 (5)
  • June 2020 (6)
  • May 2020 (3)
  • April 2020 (3)
  • March 2020 (6)
  • February 2020 (1)
  • January 2020 (6)
  • December 2019 (3)
  • November 2019 (2)
  • October 2019 (9)
  • September 2019 (10)
  • August 2019 (12)
  • July 2019 (18)
  • June 2019 (17)
  • May 2019 (12)
  • April 2019 (8)
  • March 2019 (12)
  • February 2019 (7)
  • January 2019 (13)
  • December 2018 (9)
  • November 2018 (5)
  • October 2018 (9)
  • September 2018 (5)
  • August 2018 (10)
  • July 2018 (13)
  • June 2018 (14)
  • May 2018 (8)
  • April 2018 (8)
  • March 2018 (10)
  • February 2018 (15)
  • January 2018 (17)
  • December 2017 (8)
  • November 2017 (17)
  • October 2017 (19)
  • September 2017 (11)
  • August 2017 (11)
  • July 2017 (16)
  • June 2017 (15)
  • May 2017 (10)
  • April 2017 (7)
  • March 2017 (8)
  • February 2017 (16)
  • January 2017 (8)
  • December 2016 (6)
  • November 2016 (5)

Categories

  • Allied Projects
  • Announcements
  • Art
  • Candidates
  • Debate
  • Discussion Panels
  • Distributed Computing
  • Exposure Periods
  • Foreign Ambassadors
  • General Discussion
  • Guest Articles
  • Inclusion
  • Interviews
  • Legislative Analysis
  • Official Ballots
  • Petitions
  • Platform
  • Presentations
  • Press Releases
  • Research
  • Sample Ballots
  • Science Fiction
  • Statements
  • Tolerance
  • Virtual Enlightenment Salons
  • Vote Results
  • Working Groups

Victor Run Virtual Race – June 4-6, 2021

Historical Archive – 2020 U.S. Presidential Ticket – Charlie Kam and Liz Parrish

© 2025   Copyright - U.S. Transhumanist Party - All Rights Reserved | WordPress design: Art Ramon Paintings