U.S. Transhumanist Party General Discussion Thread for September 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 September 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.
7 thoughts on “U.S. Transhumanist Party General Discussion Thread for September 2017”
I supposed already to set up an own cyronic institute for crypto preservation.
let,s discuss it.
best regards
Peter H.
Instead of setting up a new cryonics facility how about setting up a study for revival. Cryonics hibernation and revival, revival for dead people to use a neural lace, etc…
We absolutely need to stand behind increasing the NIH budget. Appropriations for FY2018 are going on now. Many Republicans AND Democrats are vying to increase the budget. Countless biotech CEOs have recently made the case to get the budget up because the NIH conducts research that their companies would not be able to invest in, as investments not leading directly to a product would affect the bottom line. 33% of all the publications from NIH research are cited in corporate patents, so it stimulates new product development. A major driver for economic progress and reducing the suffering of those in pain, the NIH is essentially a public charity that brings us into the future. Whatever your position is on government (limited, expansive), the NIH does not seek to regulate anything nor impose laws on anyone. It EXCLUSIVELY conducts medical research to help the sick. I am for private charities, as well, but I think it is asinine to not stand behind funding increases. If ANYTHING is consistent with the Transhumanist cause, it is the NIH. The NIH effectively resolved the Smallpox epidemic (which killed 500 million people), Polio, brought gene sequencing into this world, funded the development of current gene-editing platforms, and COUNTLESS other things. To pursue life extension at the exclusion of curing disease doesn’t seem very “humanist” to me. Mostly just “trans.” There are 30-100 million Americans in constant and chronic pain, and neither political party has taken adequate steps to invest in the science required to fix them. Now is not the time for pedantic, armchair “limited government” nonsense. As I said, the NIH is essentially a well-connected public biomedical research charity (**NOT** a regulatory agency), and people who argue against funding increases are effectively murdering our sick population. 2.6 million people die every year in the USA. Funding for many diseases is at $0, and the NIH has been begging for an increase for over 10 years. For the love of basic human decency, can SOME political party take a bold stance regarding medical research? It’s not a left or right issue. More Republicans, like Tom Cole, Roy Blunt, Jerry Moran, Fred Upton, and more are vehemently pushing for an increase, and the Democrats, of course, are behind it. But I have not heard anyone stand behind the NIH with the passion that a pro-science political party should. Please, Transhumanist Part, take a BOLD stance!!! Become the hope for the largely ignored sick population who need a voice to champion their voiceless cause!!!
A Plank proposal for felons.
People who are convicted of a felony normally receive a punishment such as incarceration, or monetary fines. No argument there.
I am concerned about the time after prison, where convicted felons are considered to not have the capability of sufficient judgment to vote in elections.
While I absolutely agree that the felony they committed was a lapse in judgment, this does not mean they are unfit to vote for a representative they perceive to serve their interests best.
A popular statement made by Roger Clegg, president of the conservative advocacy group Center for Equal Opportunity, “If you aren’t willing to follow the law, you can’t claim the right to make the law for everyone else.”
This sounds about right, but it isn’t, and we are actually very aware of this during election cycles. In the U.S. representatives are elected who ‘make the law’. In case of Presidential election cycles citizens don’t even vote directly, but through constituents.
This means that anyone convicted of a felon cannot ‘make a law’ by voting.
The lost right to vote not only continues a punishment after a person has fulfilled punishment decided by court, but also further isolates the person from participating as a citizen. How does this foster a sense of community, a sense to put effort into contributing to society if one cannot, or ever, be part of it again?
Another part is that, to me, it appears really ironic that convicted felons who have done their time can’t vote, in that the system has very little faith that prison time rehabilitates, or corrects the prisoner.
To deny convicted felons to vote also assumes that humans are static beings unable to change. Well, I’ll tell you, when I was in my early teens I got caught for shoplifting, which I obviously am not proud of. Although I’m sure people will disagree with some of my positions, does it seem that I do not possess the faculties to vote, or that I would choose a representative that wishes to make shoplifting legal?
There are close to 6 million felons in the U.S., which roughly equates to the population of Wisconsin, Maryland, or Missouri that cannot participate. To illustrate it differently, there are more people in the U.S. that cannot vote due to a lapse in judgment in the past, for whatever reason, that have served their time, than the populations of Montana, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming combined.
To make it clear, This thought is not based on some idea to foster sympathy for felons, or to attempt to gather more support for the U.S. Transhumanist Party.
So my proposal is:
The U.S. Transhumanist Party supports efforts to reinstate the rights to vote for convicted felons who have received, and served their punishment, in order to present them the opportunity to participate in society as otherwise normal citizens.
(feel free to edit this)
I’m a Canadian lawyer (ctb 1990, now retired).
.
Though I did not practice criminal law, I’ve been aware of this American curiosity and often wondered how such a dynamic shapes the “body politic” by effectively disproportionally disenfranchising the black-latino-impoverished part of society.
.
This is unconscienable in a democratic society and smacks of the systemic racism.
.
Dennis KG Robinson, Ll.B.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
I totally see your point of view, and indeed would not at all be surprised if racism of any kind was involved, although I would suspect it to have to do more with power and control, and the minority being the easiest target.
Regardless of whether any specific groups were targeted, it is bad form and practice for a democratic nation to take away an individual’s right to vote so easily.
Taking away one’s right to vote is actually close to revoking one’s US citizenship /nationality altogether.
With the debate surrounding monopolies, and anti-trust issues, specifically regarding Silicon Valley powerhouses as Google and Facebook, perhaps this is the right moment to discuss what, if any, position the U.S. Transhumanist Party could hold.
Not only might we consider whether anti-trust regulation is a good or bad idea, but also whether the current regulations are still practically useful, as the last anti-trust regulation stems from 104 years ago (FTCA 1914).
Does anyone have ideas or suggestions, or a plank proposal?