Browsed by
Author: Gennady Stolyarov II

Announcement Regarding California Transhumanist Party E-Governance Referendum, Encouragement to Participate, and USTP Chairman Stolyarov’s Answers

Announcement Regarding California Transhumanist Party E-Governance Referendum, Encouragement to Participate, and USTP Chairman Stolyarov’s Answers

logo_bg


The United States Transhumanist Party encourages all of its members to participate in the E-Governance Referendum designed by the California Transhumanist Party.

Please read the description of the California Transhumanist Party E-Governance Referendum here.

California Transhumanist Party Chairman Newton Lee characterized the E-Governance Referendum as the California Transhumanist Party’s “first step in establishing electronic democracy, where every citizen becomes a part of collective decision-making process.”

The California Transhumanist Party E-Governance Referendum is independent of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform, and the USTP Platform will continue to determine USTP policy positions in all respects. However, the California Transhumanist Party E-Governance Referendum is an interesting experiment in aggregation and analysis of views on policy issues by a mediated artificial superintelligence (mASI) called Uplift.  Per the description of the objectives of the referendum, “Building Better Policy in e-Governance AI-Driven Research is a part of the Uplift mASI research program that has the goal of a better understanding of how technology can be used to develop better policy. The project has a number of partners and related projects and sub-projects where we hope to explore our project vision around the application of particular key technologies in AI, comprising primarily the application of collective intelligence systems in e-governance—but also including blockchain, AGI cognitive architectures, and other distributed AI systems.”

David J. Kelley of AGI Laboratory, who developed the Uplift mASI, stated that “Uplift is about raising the apotheosis of organizations to a higher, more awakened state that can increase profits, save jobs, help the environment, and optimize society.”

On June 14, 2020, the U.S. Transhumanist Party hosted a Virtual Enlightenment Salon featuring David J. Kelley as its guest, in which an extensive discussion of Uplift and the E-Governance Referendum transpired. Watch the video of this Virtual Enlightenment Salon here.

The four questions in the California Transhumanist Party E-Governance Referendum (for which you may enter responses after clicking on the links below) are the following:

  1. Should the government keep Universal Basic Income (UBI), a “stimulus package” introduced to Americans during the COVID-related crisis?
  2. Should the government impose a higher income tax on the wealthy individuals in order to pay the Universal Basic Salary to US citizens?
  3. Should we have free universal medical care?
  4. Should the police be defunded? Consider alternatives and how such a policy could be used to force changes in local departments. Please consider how this would realistically be done?

Referendum-related questions should be directed at the mASI system running the study: mASI@Uplift.bio


U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II’s Responses to the California Transhumanist Party E-Governance Referendum

USTP Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II provided the following answers to the questions on the California Transhumanist Party E-Governance Referendum, based on the positions taken in the USTP Platform and the Transhumanist Bill of Rights, Version 3.0.

Every individual, whether or not that person is a member of the U.S. Transhumanist Party or the California Transhumanist Party, is able to participate in the California Transhumanist Party E-Governance Referendum. All individuals are encouraged to vote their conscience, and Chairman Stolyarov’s answers are presented to express one set of responses, but not necessarily the only set of responses, that would be consistent with the USTP Platform.

Question 1:

Should the government keep Universal Basic Income, introduced to Americans as a “stimulus package” during the COVID-related crisis?

Answer: Yes

What caveats do you have to your position?

The Universal Basic Income must be implemented without raising net taxes on any segment of the population. The Universal Basic Income also must not be means-tested, and the same amount must apply to all. Desirably, the Universal Basic Income should replace at least some traditional, means-tested welfare systems and thus reduce the cost of administration.

Are there key details that your position requires to maintain that position?

The most effective way of funding a Universal Basic Income would be a land dividend or resource dividend, where governmentally owned land or other natural resources would be leased (or, in the case of perishable resources, sold) to private parties with certain environmentally friendly stipulations, and with the proceeds being used to fund the Universal Basic Income.

Any means-testing or conditionality of a Universal Basic Income would defeat its purpose, as it would reintroduce the same burdensome costs of administration which render traditional means-tested welfare systems counterproductive from a cost-benefit standpoint.

How do you feel about your position and this question?

I feel strongly that Universal Basic Income could work if it is truly unconditional and does not involve redistribution of existing wealth. However, I strongly feel that Universal Basic Income will fail if it is modified to lack universality or to involve a redistributive taxation mechanism that raises taxes on higher income-earners.

Do you have any other thoughts on this topic that would be important to note?

The “trials” of Universal Basic Income that are being undertaken in various countries are not true instances of a Universal Basic Income, because they are often targeted toward specific poorer or unemployed segments of the population, and because they have an expiration date, which alters the incentives of the recipients of the funds and increases the uncertainty felt by those recipients.. Any perceived failures or insufficiencies of such “trials” should not be used to discredit the concept of a true Universal Basic Income.

Do you want to be included in the collective discussion with the AI systems on this referendum and study only related exchanges? 

Yes.

Question 2:

Should the government impose a higher income tax on the wealthy individuals in order to pay the Universal Basic Salary to U.S. citizens?

Answer: No.

What caveats do you have to your position?

Income taxes should not be raised and, on the contrary, should be repealed entirely. There should not be any graduated taxation of incomes. All taxation should be in the form of a single flat percentage-of-sales tax applicable only to purchases from businesses whose combined nationwide revenues from all affiliates exceed a specified threshold. This tax should be built into the price of goods from such large businesses and should not impede transaction efficiency in any manner or even be felt by consumers as they go about their day-to-day activities.

Are there key details that your position requires to maintain that position?

Income taxation presents a disincentive to work and creates a special compliance burden on individuals by means of the complexity of the tax code and the need to make tax-return filings. This compliance burden is more of a drain on productivity than the actual amount of the tax and particularly affects middle-class taxpayers who often submit their own tax returns using their own efforts. Moreover, graduated income taxation creates disincentives for upward economic mobility and particularly penalizes up-and-coming middle-class individuals who seek to improve their financial well-being. The ultra-wealthy can easily afford the higher tax rates in the upper income brackets or can shelter their incomes from taxation, but the middle-class and upper-middle-class taxpayers bear the full burdens. This, indeed, creates barriers to entry into the economic elite and prevents the full extent of desirable competition for wealth acquisition through productive and societally beneficial means.

How do you feel about your position and this question?

I feel strongly that any increase in any income tax would be counterproductive.

Do you have any other thoughts on this topic that would be important to note?

A federal land dividend or resource dividend would be a far superior way of funding a Universal Basic Income.

Do you want to be included in the collective discussion with the AI systems on this referendum and study only related exchanges? 

Yes.

Question 3:

Should we have free universal medical care?

Answer: Yes.

What caveats do you have to your position?

Medical care should be universal and eventually free, but not necessarily provided by government, and private competition in the provision of services should always be permitted. People should also always be permitted to pay for any medical treatments they wish to receive from any reasonably qualified provider. The way to achieve eventually free medical care is through the progress of science and technology that would dramatically reduce costs, not through compelling everyone to participate in a government program. Achieving a system of de facto free, universal medical care will realistically require a transitional period where medical care will become increasingly accessible but still require patients to pay some portion of the cost while the necessary technologies for free or nearly free delivery of care are developed and mature.

Are there key details that your position requires to maintain that position?

Medical care can become universal in much the same way that access to food is virtually universal in the “developed” world today, even though there is no government program for food distribution that everyone is required to participate in. There is a role for government in providing various safety nets and medical infrastructure for public-health reasons – such as ample hospital surge capacity in the event of pandemics, and stockpiles of personal protective equipment and other essential medical supplies. To the extent that government-supplied healthcare can improve health outcomes among the less well-off and thereby prevent the spread of infectious diseases and other maladies, this could be beneficial. Moreover, patient choice and private options, supplied on a competitive market, must always remain available. It is possible for a future system of universal healthcare to consist of a free, baseline, governmentally provided option with a large number of private competing options – including for the same services that the government option may be providing. Technological innovation and competition may drive the cost of the private options to eventually be close to zero, just as access to e-mail is virtually free today because of freedom of innovation and ample options, as well as revenue models that do not require the end users to pay. Moreover, private philanthropy can and should play a significant role in covering the costs of medical care for those in need.

How do you feel about your position and this question?

There is considerably ambiguity as to what people mean when they refer to “free” and “universal” medical care. Depending on what they actually mean, I could feel favorably inclined (as in the case of technologically driven major reductions in cost and improvements in access to care), or averse (as in the case of governmentally mandated “single payer” systems).

Do you have any other thoughts on this topic that would be important to note?

A “single payer” system of care, or a system such the Canadian one which allows no private options, is not actually a free or a universal system of care. Any system that rations care by requiring patients to wait is neither free nor universal. Moreover, any system that is funded by taxation is not free. A truly free, universal system of medical care will not involve queuing, rationing, or taxpayer subsidies. It may be funded by a superabundance of resources produced at nearly no cost by emerging technologies of advanced manufacturing and automation.

Do you want to be included in the collective discussion with the AI systems on this referendum and study only related exchanges? 

Yes.

Question 4:

Should the police be defunded? Consider alternatives and how such a policy could be used to force changes in local departments. Please consider how this would realistically be done.

Answer: No.

What caveats do you have to your position? The police should not be defunded altogether, but funding should be redirected toward more humane and less violent means of apprehending criminals and de-escalating situations. Funding currently used for militarized police forces should be devoted to technologies that can peacefully incapacitate offenders and provide effective passive defense for police officers, as well as improved training for police that prioritizes non-violent conflict resolution. Some net reduction of police funding may be justified, but some manner of police force should continue to exist to help keep the peace, or else violent crime will escalate out of control.

Are there key details that your position requires to maintain that position?

Defunding the police may be counterproductive by leaving people vulnerable to actual violent criminals. However, serious police reform is necessary – including eliminating qualified immunity, curbing the power of police unions, requiring police body cameras and protecting recordings from tampering by police, facilitating objective, external investigations of alleged police misconduct, prohibiting no-knock raids and chokeholds, and requiring that police use non-lethal means unless their lives are genuinely threatened. Most importantly, the default operating protocols of police must be revised in the United States to be more similar to those in countries where killings by police are minimal.

How do you feel about your position and this question?

I feel ambivalent about calls to “defund the police”, because they are seldom accompanied by specific measures that would replace the role of the police in combatting actual violent crime. Sometimes, those who advocate “defunding” the police actually advocate a reduction and/or redirection of the funds to other conflict-resolution methods, and in those cases I am more favorably inclined – since not all instances of misbehavior require police intervention to correct.

Do you have any other thoughts on this topic that would be important to note?

Any effective police reform needs to focus on the root causes of police militarization and reflexively lethal use of force. Such root causes include the misguided War on Drugs and War on Terror, as well the existence of artificial and protectionist barriers to economic opportunity for many individuals, which lead those individuals to be channeled into lives of crime.

Do you want to be included in the collective discussion with the AI systems on this referendum and study only related exchanges? 

Yes.

U.S. Transhumanist Party Condemns Unjustified Shootings and Crowd Violence in Wisconsin and Washington, D.C., Calls for Unity for a Brighter Future

U.S. Transhumanist Party Condemns Unjustified Shootings and Crowd Violence in Wisconsin and Washington, D.C., Calls for Unity for a Brighter Future

logo_bg


August 29, 2020 – The United States Transhumanist Party (USTP) expressed alarm at the troubling and saddening events in Kenosha, Wisconsin, which began with the tragic and unjustified shooting on August 23 by police of Jacob Blake, an unarmed black man, multiple times in the back. Violence was escalated in subsequent days by looters who robbed and destroyed numerous peaceful businesses, and also by a lone individual who killed two protesters. During the night of August 27, 2020, while returning from the Republican National Convention in Washington, D.C., Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, a long-time advocate critic of police shootings and advocate of police reform, was violently assaulted along with his wife, by a crowd of about 100 protesters who threatened his life and attempted to push through the police who were escorting him and to violently lunge at him.

Opposition to racism and other circumstantial discrimination, as well as the unequivocal condemnation of violence resulting from such attitudes, has been a cornerstone of the USTP Platform since its inception. Section II of the USTP Platform, adopted by its members during the first USTP Platform vote held on January 15-21, 2017, and subsequently amended during November 11-17, 2017, reads, “The United States Transhumanist Party supports all acceptance, tolerance, and inclusivity of individuals and groups of all races, genders, classes, religions, creeds, and ideologies. Accordingly, the United States Transhumanist Party condemns any hostile discrimination or legal restrictions on the basis of national origin, skin color, birthplace, ancestry, gender identity, or any manner of circumstantial attribute tied to a person’s lineage or accident of birth. Furthermore, the United States Transhumanist Party strongly opposes any efforts to enforce said restrictions regardless of cause or motivation thereof. Additionally, any institution that uses violence, suppression of free speech, or other unconstitutional or otherwise illegal methods will be disavowed and condemned by the United States Transhumanist Party, with an efficient, non-violent alternative to said institution being offered to achieve its goals if they align with the Party’s interests.”

The USTP has also long stood against police brutality and excessive use of force. During a vote held during March 26 – April 1, 2017, the USTP members adopted Section XXI of the USTP Platform, which reads, “The United States Transhumanist Party supports a concerted effort by governments and by public opinion to eradicate police brutality against peaceful citizens, such that violent force is only utilized against individuals who actually pose an imminent threat to human lives.”

The text of Section XXI was originally authored in 2015 by USTP Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II, who remarked, “Police brutality has long been a personal issue for me. In June 2009, I was peacefully exercising in the fitness center of my apartment complex at the time, when two police officers barged in with guns pointed at me, in response to an alarm triggered by an unknown individual, which summoned them automatically. This situation was the closest I had ever come to death and thus was the moment in my life where I as a transhumanist faced the greatest threat and the greatest injustice. I managed to successfully narrate my every move to the police and de-escalate the situation over the course of a minute during which guns were pointed at me. But I sometimes wonder what my fate would have been had I lacked the presence of mind to cooperate, or had I looked different or been less readily able to prove that I had a key to the facility. The next day I learned from the assistant manager of the apartment complex that the police had treated him the same way. It became apparent to me that threatening and deploying lethal force against unarmed individuals has become a default modus operandi for American police – a practice that verges dangerously close to a bias for shooting first, asking questions later. We can also expect that every organization will have its ‘bad apples’ – individuals without moral restraint, who are also often prone to racial stereotyping. Combining violence-prone training with violence-prone mentalities of the few but still highly damaging racially biased police officers leads to a situation where many black Americans have suffered disproportionately from these unjust killings – but many Americans of all backgrounds have paid this heavy toll as well. No unarmed, non-violent, or non-lethally-violent person – of any skin color – should ever be killed, injured, or threatened with such undeserved punishments by police.  No other country with even a quasi-representative form of government has anywhere near the rate of police killings that are widespread in the United States. It is evident that police training and protocols regarding the use of force need urgent reform, and far less violent options that are routinely practiced in Europe, Canada, and Japan should be implemented in the United States.”

“It is evident that police training and protocols regarding the use of force need urgent reform, and far less violent options that are routinely practiced in Europe, Canada, and Japan should be implemented in the United States.”
~ Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party

The USTP Platform advocates for numerous other measures to quell police brutality, including Section XXXIV (sousveillance / body cameras), Section LXXXIX (prohibition against police being equipped with military-grade hardware), Section XC (requirement for police to be equipped with and mostly use rubber bullets), Section LIX (requirement for outside investigations of police misconduct), Section LX (prohibition of collusion among law-enforcement entities to cover up police misbehavior), Section LXXXVI (improved reporting of police misconduct), and various additional approaches to achieve police accountability. Had these measures and others – such as banning no-knock raids, banning chokeholds, implementing mandatory de-escalation protocols and interventions by police officers who observe wrongdoing by their colleagues, and ending qualified immunity for police officers accused of misconduct – been implemented in the United States, many victims of police killings – including Tamir Rice, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and USTP member Duncan Socrates Lemp, who was killed by a SWAT team during a no-knock raid in Potomac, Maryland, on March 12, 2020 – would likely have been alive today.

Moreover, Section VI of the USTP Platform champions morphological freedom, defined as “the right to do with one’s physical attributes or intelligence whatever one wants so long as it does not directly harm others” and entailing “the duty to treat all sapients as individuals instead of categorizing them into arbitrary subgroups or demographics”. Discussing the implications of morphological freedom, Art Ramon Garcia, Jr., the USTP Director of Visual Art, articulated the hope that it will “make white supremacy irrelevant” and likewise obliterate the remnants of every other form of irrational prejudice based on a person’s origins, “morphological freedom in an age of genetic engineering […] will allow anyone to become anything.”

“Morphological freedom will make white supremacy irrelevant. Morphological freedom in an age of genetic engineering will allow anyone to become anything.”      ~ Art Ramon Garcia, Jr., Director of Visual Art, United States  Transhumanist Party

Tom Ross, the USTP Director of Sentient Rights Advocacy, condemned the violence in Kenosha and explained that “These [shootings] are racist. A white man walked right by cops with an assault rifle strapped to him and Jacob Blake was simply walking away.” Mr. Ross pointed to two of the USTP’s three Core Ideals being in conflict with these violent events.

The USTP’s Core Ideal 2 states, “The Transhumanist Party supports a cultural, societal, and political atmosphere informed and animated by reason, science, and secular values.”

Mr. Ross remarked regarding the police shooting of Mr. Blake, “The actions of the police are not reasonable. They are fueled by systemic racism which the U.S. has been mired in for two plus centuries. We also recognize that the current Executive Branch of the government is fomenting this violence by ignoring the overwhelming call for tolerance and equal justice for African-Americans and other minorities. We recognize that this current President is desperate to stay in office by whatever means necessary to avoid charges and possible imprisonment if defeated. He is attempting to do so by fanning the flames of civil unrest and emboldening racist actions in our Law Enforcement. The USTP absolutely recognizes that these actions and personalities are the exception that proves the rule, and we do not promote defunding the Police entirely; rather we think Police Departments are overburdened by activities that other civil social operations should handle, and funding should be redirected. But let’s call it what it is, racism and an abuse of power.”

The USTP’s Core Ideal 3 states, “The Transhumanist Party supports efforts to use science, technology, and rational discourse to reduce and eliminate various existential risks to the human species.”

Mr. Ross pointed to how the downward spiral of violence can endanger the prospects of humanity. “One of the clear existential threats to our species is the sensationalization of such violence. Today’s media technology is used too often to share discord, and our news services understand that sensational stories with ‘graphic content’ are ways to increase ‘likes’ and ‘views’, which directly affects their ratings and revenue. Media plays on the basest instincts in humanity and profits on this greatly. The ‘Human Condition’ has been made to be a negative attribute because of this machine of sensationalism. ‘If it bleeds it leads’ is the principle on which this machine operates. Although we recognize that this ship will not be easily turned, the USTP strives to find trimtabs in our society that can make the small and necessary changes in their own communities to right the ship of state.”

 

“One of the clear existential threats to our species is the sensationalization of such violence. Today’s media technology is used too often to share discord, and our news services understand that sensational stories with ‘graphic content’ are ways to increase ‘likes’ and ‘views’, which directly affects their ratings and revenue. Media plays on the basest instincts in humanity and profits on this greatly.” ~ Tom Ross, Director of Sentient Rights Advocacy, United States Transhumanist Party

At the same time, the USTP emphasized that more violence is never the answer to the problem of unjustified violence. “The businesses in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and the many peaceful civilians whose lives have been disrupted and who have been met with threats and injury, had no involvement in the tragic shooting of Jacob Blake or the many other victims of police misconduct,” Chairman Stolyarov stated. “Efforts should be focused toward reforming unjust protocols and institutions, not lashing out against innocent third parties who might quite likely have been potential allies in the task of reform. The path offered by the U.S. Transhumanist Party is to deliberate about how science, technology, and rational discourse – and their ethical and effective implementation through well-thought-out policies – can right these wrongs in a lasting manner, enabling racism, police brutality, and opportunistic looting alike to all become relegated to the dustbin of history by a society whose members come to know better. We express our support for those who, through peaceful and constructive action, are seeking solutions to this feedback loop of recurring and mutually escalating tragedies. All persons of conscience who wish to improve the situation must desist from initiating violence in any form and must turn their attention toward building instead of destroying.”

Tom Ross also criticized the violent attacks on Senator Rand Paul by the crowd in Washington D.C., “Regardless of our personal political bents or positions on this issue, our central motive must be to stand against all forms of violence. As a Transhumanist, I consider physical violence to be a primitive action that is motivated by fear and perpetuates a mob mentality. To protest police brutality with brutality is not only counterproductive but gives bad actors more justification for it. This is not a binary issue between Democrats and Republicans, Right and Left; it is a nuanced and multifaceted issue that requires a holistic approach. Senator Rand Paul is a proponent of criminal-justice reform, and so the protesters who attacked him have, well, lunged at Peter to scare Paul.”

Chairman Stolyarov concurred. He remarked, “A mob of people threatened the life of a Senator who, by all reasonable understandings, has been a leading proponent of curbing police brutality and eliminating abuse from the criminal-justice system. If we are to stand against the unjust violence perpetrated against Jacob Blake and others, then we must also stand against this purely counterproductive conduct. Injustice does not give license to perpetrate further injustice. Two wrongs – or thousands of wrongs – cannot ever make a right. Only de-escalation and a return to rational discourse, focusing on systemic and technologically powered reforms, can chart a way out of the present crisis.”

Pavel Ilin, Secretary of the U.S. Transhumanist Party, emphasized the need to refocus the conversation toward shared goals that include everyone. “As transhumanists we are trying to overcome a built-in brutal evolutionary heritage by building an environment of inclusion and dialogue. We try to transcend division between ‘us’ and ‘them’ by creating a larger concept of WE in which every sentient form of life is included, protected, and celebrated. There are no ‘Others’, only ‘we’. Murder is an extreme form of othering which cannot be undone. The life of each sentient entity is sacred. We are often talking about curing aging and living indefinitely long. But death from aging is no different fundamentally than death from a gun. No one should lose life involuntarily. No one should have a right to take it away.”

“Murder is an extreme form of othering which cannot be undone. The life of each sentient entity is sacred. We are often talking about curing aging and living indefinitely long. But death from aging is no different fundamentally than death from a gun. No one should lose life involuntarily. No one should have a right to take it away.” ~ Pavel Ilin, Secretary, United States Transhumanist Party

Liz Parrish, the U.S. Vice-Presidential candidate endorsed by the USTP, called on all Americans to transcend violence and join the effort to build a brighter future for all. She stated:

“We must build a future founded in the principles that every American can agree with by stating the obvious; we are all in this together. We need each other.  We must deny drowning in party-line negativity, condemn violence, and use these current events as fuel to create positive change. We can bring this country back together over principles that we can all agree on — health, freedom, liberty, and justice.

“As a country, we will unite to create a future through science and technological advancement— eradicate disease and thereby increase human health-span and create technological developments that can reach every adult and child.  We will lead by rational conversation, compassion, and connection.

“We must deny drowning in party-line negativity, condemn violence, and use these current events as fuel to create positive change. We can bring this country back together over principles that we can all agree on — health, freedom, liberty, and justice.” ~ Liz Parrish, U.S. Vice-Presidential Candidate, United States Transhumanist Party

“Regardless of religion and identity, everyone is invited to build this future with us—a future without the abuse of power, unequal resources, and unfair treatment. We must overcome our brutality and greed to make these next advancements. The future awaits us as a logical, feeling, and intelligent species.  And in this newfound peace, we will create new advancements and connections to expand our reach beyond the stars.”

Join us in restoring a shared vision of a brighter future. Become a member of the U.S. Transhumanist Party for free in less than a minute, no matter where you reside. 

Liz Parrish Becomes Vice-Presidential Nominee for Charlie Kam’s 2020 U.S. Presidential Campaign

Liz Parrish Becomes Vice-Presidential Nominee for Charlie Kam’s 2020 U.S. Presidential Campaign


PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Gennady Stolyarov II
Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party
E-mail: gennadystolyarovii@gmail.com

August 21, 2020 – Charlie Kam, the candidate for President of the United States endorsed by the United States Transhumanist Party (USTP), has announced his selection of Elizabeth (Liz) Parrish as his Vice-Presidential running mate.

Elizabeth (Liz) Parrish

Remarking on his selection, Charlie Kam stated, “Elizabeth (Liz) is the embodiment of what it means to be a Transhumanist. She is the Founder and CEO of BioViva, a company committed to extending healthy lifespans using cell technologies. Liz is a humanitarian, entrepreneur, innovator, podcaster, and a leading voice for genetic cures. As a strong proponent of progress and education for the advancement of regenerative medicine modalities, she serves as a motivational speaker to the public at large for the life sciences. She is actively involved in international educational media outreach. Along with all of that, Liz is a good friend whom I’ve known for years, and I look forward to campaigning together to promote the ideas and values of the USTP!”

USTP Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II remarked that “The U.S. Transhumanist Party is honored to be represented by such an articulate, passionate, and intrepid advocate of longevity and medical science as Liz Parrish. Liz Parrish is one of the world’s leading proponents for the development of gene therapies to treat a variety of diseases, including biological aging. Anyone who follows the field of rejuvenation biotechnology knows that, in 2015, Liz Parrish became the first human to receive a combination gene therapy as ‘patient zero’ in her own experiment. This was an immensely courageous decision which showed leadership by example, led to greatly enhanced public awareness, and inspired many to advocate for this burgeoning field of research and human benefit. Liz Parrish speaks powerfully about the imperative to cure diseases and minimize the horrific suffering that many – from children to the elderly – undergo today because of various common and rare ailments. Her voice and energy will be tremendous assets to the Charlie Kam campaign and to the USTP as we spread the essential message of the feasibility and desirability of significant life extension during our lifetimes and cultivate public awareness and support for the policies and projects that could get us there.”

Liz Parrish is involved in numerous organizations and projects in addition to her role at BioViva. She is the Advocacy Advisor to the USTP and a founding member of the International Longevity Alliance (ILA). She is an affiliated member of the Complex Biological Systems Alliance (CBSA), which is a unique platform for Mensa-based, highly gifted persons who advance scientific discourse and discovery. The mission of the CBSA is to further scientific understanding of biological complexity and the nature and origins of human disease. Liz Parrish is the founder of BioTrove Investments LLC and the BioTrove Podcasts, which is committed to offering a meaningful way for people to learn about and fund research in regenerative medicine.

Commenting on her new role as the Vice-Presidential candidate endorsed by the USTP, Liz Parrish stated, “I believe now is the right time in human history to further the transhumanist mission. Our planet, our species, and the survival of all other species are in our hands now. People are tired of division and divisiveness. Humans must convene, start a new conversation, and work toward bettering our condition and that of our planet through the transhumanist mission.”

The USTP looks forward to numerous opportunities to inform, educate, and galvanize the public in the United States and the world through the Kam-Parrish 2020 U.S. Presidential ticket. Any individual in the world who is capable of forming a political opinion and who agrees with the three Core Ideals of the USTP is welcome to join the USTP as a member for free.

“During the next ten weeks, Charlie Kam and Liz Parrish will show the world that a better future, and a better approach to political discourse, are possible and are on the horizon. They will also bring attention to the technologies and policies that will enable as many people as possible to live to see that future,” remarked Chairman Stolyarov. “Supporting the Kam-Parrish 2020 ticket is the prudent, foresighted choice for those who wish for the transhumanist vision and values to become an everyday reality for all.”

Petition by Biogerontology Global to Declare Aging the Top Global Risk

Petition by Biogerontology Global to Declare Aging the Top Global Risk

logo_bg

Biogerontology Global


Editor’s Note: The U.S. Transhumanist Party encourages its members to support the petition created by our allies at Biogerontology Global, which aims to declare aging the largest global risk. The U.S. Transhumanist Party holds significant life extension as its first Core Ideal, and biological aging is the greatest barrier to significant life extension. Overcoming biological aging through the progress of science and technology is therefore the greatest moral imperative of our time.

 ~ Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party, August 21, 2020

Sign this petition on Change.org here


TL;DR: You have a terminal disease and so does everyone you love. Human aging kills more people (100,000 per day), causes more suffering, and harms society more than anything else – by a large margin. Scientific discoveries and technological advancements are making it clearer by the day that given enough funding and effort, human aging can be cured. In other words, we should cure aging and we can cure aging. For that to happen, however, a large cultural shift must take place in favor and support of the idea – which currently faces significant opposition and neglect. The Global Risks Report is an annual publication released by the World Economic Forum that ranks global risks. It is read by a large portion of world leaders and citizens alike. If human aging were to top this list of risks or, at the very least, make the cut, it would help the world see aging as an urgent threat and potentially save the life of whomever is reading this. Sign this petition if you want to help declare aging the top global risk.

Detailed Description:

Each year, the World Economic Forum, with support from Marsh and McLennan Companies, releases a Global Risks Report. This report, as the name suggests, includes detailed analyses and rankings of the greatest threats facing the world each year. Each major threat is referred to as a risk. The two-part centerpiece of this report consists of a ranking of the top 5 risks in terms of likelihood, and another ranking of the top 5 risks in terms of impact. There are also “trends”. Per the World Economic Forum, a “trend” is defined as a long-term pattern that is currently evolving and that could contribute to amplifying global risks and/or altering the relationship between them. Simply put, trends are not seen as the major global threats, but instead as factors that may influence them. In past years “population ageing” has sometimes been recognized as a trend, but nothing more.

The purpose of this petition is to get the World Economic Forum to not only recognize human aging as a global risk but as the global risk. Human aging kills approximately 100,000 people per day. In developed countries, 90% of all deaths are at the hands of age-related disease. How could it be that the largest cause of human death (by an immense margin) is not seen as the most pressing issue in the world? Not to mention, the amount of human suffering caused by the diseases of old age is arguably unparalleled. Why is this mass suffering and death justified rather than fought?

In 2020, the top 5 global risks in terms of likelihood were all environmental. Solving aging would significantly lessen these risks. Without human aging, people would not be planning to die. They would have a stake in the long-term future of the environment. This radical sociological shift could be the push humanity needs to start consistently making environmentally beneficial decisions. Overpopulation should not be a concern, as we have more than enough land and resources to accommodate a much larger population on planet Earth. More efficient methods of resource allocation are the remedy for current problems that are often falsely attributed to a growing global population. Additionally, emerging agricultural technologies such as hydroponics, which can boost crop yields by up to 11 times, and vertical farming, which can further maximize that factor, will continue to make it even easier to feed more people.

Without human aging, we would no longer have such a substantial portion of society that is sick and unable to work or enjoy the activities that they so loved in their youth. This could work wonders for global productivity. Not to mention, people who are not gripped by old age and stay in the workforce much longer than they do now would become more experienced than the workers of today, boosting global productivity even further.

People would be happier in a world without death by aging. They would have much more time with their loved ones. They would be able to have and achieve long-term goals without the inevitability of death by aging to get in the way. They would have the time to live fuller lives. Happier societies commit less crime, so that is another societal ill that curing aging could help dismantle.

Many of humanity’s greatest threats are directly or indirectly the result of human aging. If we were to solve aging, many of the global risks mentioned in past Global Risks Reports would no longer be major issues.

We tend to think of death by aging as an inevitability of life. However, scientists in the field of biogerontology (the study of biological aging), billionaire businesspeople and philanthropists, technologists, and many other professionals/activists are working to make death by aging optional. Science and technology have already drastically improved lifespan and health in recent years by a considerable margin; however, it can do more. The molecular mechanisms by which we age (The Hallmarks of Aging) have been identified by scientists. Interventions such as senolytic drugs have already been proven to counteract some of these mechanisms. Cellular pathways have been genetically modified to extend the lifespans of model organisms to the equivalent of 500 human years. Google has launched and given over a billion dollars to its subsidiary, Calico, which researches aging. Many other companies and nonprofits, including the SENS Research Foundation and Methuselah Foundation, are tackling aging or its subparts. Growing support and advancement makes it clear that humanity will cure aging eventually, but so many people die each day of aging that eventually is not good enough. We must cure aging as soon as possible to save ourselves and those we love.

This petition recognizes that a cultural shift at every level of society is necessary for leaders and organizations in this space to garner enough support to cure human aging within our lifetimes. If this petition were to succeed, that cultural shift would come easier. Between the large portions of world leaders and citizens that read and respect the Global Risks Report, many more people would recognize aging as a problem they can solve and should solve if the report were to name aging as a global risk. This would lead to increased funding to cure aging, more talented scientists and technologists joining the space, and a greater opportunity to cure aging within our lifetimes!

Aging is objectively the largest global risk to humanity in terms of likelihood and impact. We ask that the World Economic Forum recognize this and act accordingly.

Sign this petition to help forge a better existence for yourself, your loved ones, and all of humanity.

Learn more at @biogerontology on Instagram.

Breaking the Bottleneck: A Synergy of Technology and Medicine – Article by Zach Richardson

Breaking the Bottleneck: A Synergy of Technology and Medicine – Article by Zach Richardson

logo_bg

Zach Richardson


In March of 2019, I began to have a very strange problem. I was breathing normally, but felt like I was suffocating. The problem became much worse when lying down, but seemed to come and go arbitrarily. Some days it would be really bad, and on others I didn’t even notice it. This happened twice in a week, and I checked with a doctor. He assured me I had anxiety and gave me a prescription for some anxiolytic medicine. I couldn’t breathe, and his solution was Xanax. I stupidly trusted him.

In May 2019, I ended up in the hospital. My body was turning yellow, and my liver, kidneys, and heart were failing. The cause was idiopathic; none of the 7 specialists knew why I was having congestive heart failure. A couple of drugs were tried, but in the end the only solution they said would save my life was the implantation of a mechanical device that would help my heart pump: a Ventricular Assist Device, or VAD.

I was lucky enough to be selected as a perfect candidate for a clinical trial, partially due to being particularly young for having Congestive Heart Failure (CHF). A new version of an already cutting-edge technology would be tested on my body, and the results would be recorded for their study. The machine they implanted was called the Heartmate 3, and it saved my life.

The VAD is currently used either as “bridge” or “destination” therapy, with “bridge” meaning that it is used only temporarily until one can get a heart transplant, and “destination” meaning that one is ineligible for transplant at all, and will have the VAD for the rest of one’s life. Some of the contraindications for VAD implantation being bridge therapy include being obese or over 65 years of age. Luckily, I am not either of those two, and therefore am eligible for a transplant. However, there are two factors that are going to lead to it likely being an extremely long time before a donor heart is available. One is that I am a larger man, standing at 6 feet tall, meaning I require a larger-than-average heart. The other is that I have Type O blood, which is the hardest from the standpoint of receiving an organ donation.

This puts me in a very interesting situation, where I am a young man who may have many years still ahead of him with an implanted device. It may be 7 years from now when I get the call for transplant, or it may be tomorrow. If it happens 7 years from now, there may be therapies that will have been developed that would allow me to regrow my heart, or clone one from my stem cells, and thereby avoid having to be on a cocktail of immunosuppressants indefinitely. Unfortunately, even Athersys only has CHF treatments in the preclinical stage, which means I may have to wait a while. I intensely wish those trials weren’t being constrained like they are.

Having set significant life extension towards the very top of my hierarchy of values, I am extremely grateful that I live in a society where these technologies are available to me. I have a highly personal interest in seeing a society of scientists and biomedical engineers emerge to help develop these technologies! However, part of my situation was just me getting lucky: I had the treatment I needed approved just months before receiving it, and happened to have top-notch insurance.

One unfortunate side effect of having a centralized regulatory system is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is only held responsible for what are known as “Type I Errors”. A Type I error is where the FDA passes an unsafe drug or treatment, leading to harm to an individual or group. Unfortunately, this means that FDA officials do not seem to care at all about “Type II Errors”, where they do not pass a life-saving treatment or drug in time to save someone’s life. The FDA is so terrified of having another Vioxx incident, that FDA officials are overly cautious in approving the use of radically innovative and breakthrough technologies. The fact that these technologies carry some risk is something of no worry to someone who is going to die if they don’t get the treatment. It is much harder to blame the FDA for being too safe than it is to blame them for being reckless.

This is why I am proud to be a member of the U.S. Transhumanist Party (USTP), where science and technology are put at the forefront of American politics. The current bottleneck those like me with CHF face is regulatory hurdles. Article VI, Section VI, of the USTP Constitution states: “The United States Transhumanist Party upholds morphological freedom—the right to do with one’s physical attributes or intelligence whatever one wants so long as it does not directly harm others.” Right now what I and others with CHF would like to do is to get a stem-cell heart. We are being hindered not by direct legislation restricting morphological freedom, but by the far more pernicious hindrance of excessive regulatory burden. The treatments we want are being developed exponentially slower than they could be, because each step of the way has to adhere to draconian testing standards. This means a lot of Type II errors are being committed. We are not being told, “You cannot get this treatment.” Providers are being told, “You cannot provide this treatment.”

In my ideal world, regulatory agencies would work more like Underwriters Laboratories or Quality Assurance International. Leaving regulatory activity to the market, far from the fearmongering of producing dangerous and shoddy drugs and treatments, would instead invigorate the institutions as they would compete to certify the best products and treatments for consumers, since their names and reputations would be on the line.

I believe there needs to be a much stronger focus in regulatory institutions toward the elimination of Type II Errors, because there are a lot of sick people going untreated.

Zach Richardson is a Certified Supply Chain Professional and small-business co-owner producing respirator-style masks to help stem the tide of COVID-19’s spread. His website is isgmanufacturing.com. He is a member of the U.S. Transhumanist Party.

U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II’s Update Interview on the Archer Report – July 24, 2020

U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II’s Update Interview on the Archer Report – July 24, 2020

Gennady Stolyarov II
Steele Archer


U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II’s July 24, 2020, appearance on the Archer Report with Steele Archer, was an opportunity for a fascinating 130-minute conversation about the forthcoming U.S. Transhumanist Party Virtual Enlightenment Salon with Dr. David Hanson of Hanson Robotics, Charlie Kam’s 2020 U.S. Presidential campaign, concerns about public reactions to the pandemic, and major issues with the contemporary media ecosystem, both with legacy and social media.

References

Trump challenged by radical presidential candidate hoping to REVERSE ageing” by James Bickerton. Daily Express. July 6, 2020.

Free U.S. Transhumanist Party Membership

Persecution of Science: A Lesson from the 20th Century – Article by Benjamin Locke

Persecution of Science: A Lesson from the 20th Century – Article by Benjamin Locke

logo_bg

Benjamin Locke


Editor’s Note: The United States Transhumanist Party publishes this guest submission by Benjamin Locke to bring attention to the important issues it raises regarding how irrational prejudice against science, as well as against human beings based on circumstantial attributes more generally, can be prevented and diminished, to avert the kind of terrible toll that transpired in the mid-20th century from being inflicted again.

~ Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party,
July 18, 2020


Throughout the course of human history, there has been a struggle between rationality and antiscience. This struggle also grips the United States. The U.S. Transhumanist Party is a rarity in the American political atmosphere. There is admiration for seeing an American political party dedicated to reason, scientific advancements, and improving life for all of humanity. So, I started wondering: what would happen if parties like us were too afraid to exist? What would happen if people dedicated to reason and science were too afraid to speak? I found my answer in one of the most infamous, cruelest governments ever to taint the face of Earth.

During the reign of the Nazi Fascists, there was a mass scientific exodus from Germany because the Nazis valued nationalism and “racial pride” over brilliant minds like Albert Einstein, Hans Bethe, Leo Szilard, and many others who fled to the United States. Two years before the Nazis consolidated power in 1933, a journalist asked Adolf Hitler who would be the brains of Germany if the Nazis took over. Hitler responded: “I’ll be the brains!” By 1945, Hitler’s “brains” deepened Germany into a system of hate and genocide. He pushed Europe into a brutal world war, and he oversaw the largest persecution of logic and reason. 

Many people wonder: “Why wasn’t an atrocity like the Holocaust prevented?” While many are quick to solely place blame on the actions of Hitler and his unfortunately large amount of monstrous followers, a large portion of the blame falls on those who remained silent and indifferent. In the spring of 1933, a few protested the expulsion of great scientists (like Max Born, James Franck, and many more) from Gottingen University. Even famous scientists like Werner Heisenberg voiced dissent. Despite the calls for reason, Hitler and his companions were deafened by their own tune of hate. 

By the end of 1945, when the hatred of the Nazis was finally stomped out by the Allies, 6 million Jews and 5 – 6 million members of other groups had been murdered. We will never know the number of future Albert Einsteins, Hans Bethes, and Leo Szilards buried because of systematic hatred. 

So that raises the question: why were high-ranking Germans so blinded by antiscience and racism that they could not see reason? When World War One concluded, the once-powerful German Empire was replaced by a weak nation called the Weimar Republic. It was a nation which, many claimed, was unnecessarily weakened by the victorious powers of the First World War through articles like the Treaty of Versailles (signed 1919). This infuriated World War One veterans (Hitler himself was one) and many patriotic Germans. A wave of fervent nationalism arose and demanded an answer to Germany’s failures. This is why groups like the Nazis assembled in 1920. Instead of utilizing reason and using it as a tool to rebuild their national pride, they settled on scapegoats and pseudoscience. The Jews were quickly targeted. Their shops were vandalized, they were beaten in the streets, and German doctrine declared them “subhuman”. By 1933, the Nazis were so entrenched in their hatred that their misguided beliefs became their reason. 

Some may argue that Hitler’s Nazi Party is the reason why Germany rose out of a broken and impoverished nation like the Weimar Republic. However, in the span of less than 20 years, Germany went from the forefront of the scientific world back to a devastated, impoverished nation… a nation in a worse state than that after the infamous signing of the Treaty of Versailles. 

We have to wonder: What if the flames of bitter hate were stomped out early before it blazed into an uncontrollable forest fire? What would happen if Germany had, instead of persecuting their most brilliant minds, let them live and work? How much further would science be today? What responsibilities do we, as Americans dedicated to defending life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, hold so a terrible system of hatred never burns down our country? 

 

Stablecoins: The Next Gold Rush? – Article by Adam Alonzi

Stablecoins: The Next Gold Rush? – Article by Adam Alonzi

logo_bg

Adam Alonzi


What money should be has been explored by more than one economist. What it is, strange as it may sound, is also up for debate. Yet amidst these disputes, practical and abstract, there is consensus.

At this time the entire crypto market is valued between 380 and 560 billion USD. The value of all the world’s stocks is around 70 trillion USD. The daily volume of the Forex is 5.1 trillion USD. Despite the excitement it periodically sparks in mass media and high finance circles, crypto is barely a drop in the bucket.

As I stated in my response to Robert Shiller’s critique of Bitcoin, tokenization is a means of dividing an asset. Tokenization, easily dividing an asset among stakeholders, is a strength of blockchain technology. Tokens can represent abstract entities issued on the blockchain, but they can also be tethered to a piece of real estate, a work of art, a trademark, or a freighter of Chilean copper.

A Stablecoin is related to this concept. A Stablecoin (SC) is a cryptocurrency that is pegged to fiat currency or a commodity in a fixed ratio. Stablecoins are being developed by massive corporations like JPMorgan Chase and are being looked into by governments around the world. The backing of mature institutions, whatever your opinion may be of them, can give crypto credibility and capital to move forward.

At this time cryptocurrencies are for the most part speculative toys or safe havens for those expecting for the fiat system to implode. In any case, common use remains elusive. While milk and eggs can be bought with crypto, it is not a normal occurrence. The major barrier to this is volatility.

Stability could come after a stampede into crypto by a reasonable percentage of the world’s population. Some authors have claimed an economic catastrophe could precipitate an exodus from fiat, but this seems to spring from wishful thinking – the same sort gold bugs have been indulging in for the last half century.

This is not meant as disparagement of gold or its advocates. Gold is a fine investment, but the issue at hand here is common use, something gold is not likely to readily lend itself to ever again – at least not in its most familiar forms. Several Stablecoins are currently backed by gold. By doing so, they combine the benefits of crypto with the timeless tangibility of precious metals.

Stablecoins are digital representatives of an item that may not be readily divisible and therefore inconvenient or impossible to use for daily transactions. Very few shoppers would want to overnight a tiny gold nugget to an eBay seller. Those hoping for a speedy ingress of users should consider that an equally rapid egress could follow.

Slow and steady wins the race?

While more users and more merchants could curb price swings, how and when this will happen remains an open question. If stability is not established, at least for long enough to secure investor confidence, conventional cryptocurrencies will never outgrow their reputations as dangerous playthings.

Some members of the crypto community are philosophically opposed to Stablecoins because they betray the vision of total decentralization. High ideals can clash with reality. Decentralization is not a strong selling point for most folks. It is not easy to explain beyond “no one controls it”, which is as likely to make them feel uneasy as it is to instill confidence.

It’s not as though Stablecoins are taking anything from the crypto community. Aside from bringing in new converts, they also add diversity to the cryptosphere. An orchard of identical apple trees is doomed when the right pest arrives. Monocultures are inherently weak. A diverse financial ecosystem is a resilient one. The proliferation of new blockchain projects, as overwhelming as it may be, is good for all of us.

There are a plethora of cryptocurrencies aiming to be “just” mediums of exchange. Monero (XMR), Ripple (XRP), and Dash (DASH), for all their differences, are innovating and are finding their niches. Anonymity, speed, and low transaction fees are attractive, but is it enough to convince Uncle Fred to begin buying his sweaters with them?

Although some have nuanced algorithms managing their supply, Stablecoins make crypto more understandable to the average person. Finance and technology are boogeymen to most consumers; there is no need to make either more arcane or frightening than necessary.

Adolescence is difficult because we feel pressured, from within or without, to choose a path. We are under the impression that our choices are final and our one-dimensional trajectories are set. Whether Stablecoins are a passing phase or a critical bridge to the materialization of Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision, they seem poised to become permanent fixtures in high finance and daily life.

Adam Alonzi is a U.S. Transhumanist Party member, writer, biotechnologist, documentary maker, futurist, inventor, programmer, and author of the novels A Plank in Reason and Praying for Death: A Zombie Apocalypse. He is an analyst for the Millennium Project, the Head Media Director for BioViva Sciences, and Editor-in-Chief of Radical Science News. Listen to his podcasts here. Read his blog here.

Transhumanism: The Important Gray Area Between the Madness of the Two-Party System in America – Article by C. H. Antony

Transhumanism: The Important Gray Area Between the Madness of the Two-Party System in America – Article by C. H. Antony

logo_bgC. H. Antony


What’s missing from politics today? Some will leap to simple responses like “integrity”, “honesty”, “education”. But I say it’s worse than all that. However, I will not spend paragraphs going into the various conspiracies and fear-mongering – that is behavior more fitting for the main two political parties. What I would like to accomplish here is to propose the values and intentions of the United States Transhumanist Party (USTP) as solutions. 

To begin, we must examine the current most pressing issue, that of human rights. As you read this, many thousands have taken to the streets in every major city and 18 countries around the world to scream at their governments that enough is enough – that they will not be duped into economic caste systems, race wars, or trafficking schemes. Whether the battle cry is “Black Lives Matter” or whether it is a cry against manufactured poverty, or a call to defund the police and reallocate resources toward fundamental solutions over enforcement, the message is clear: humanity is ready to move on. Here at the USTP, we have assembled a comprehensive Platform and identified areas for reform such as sentient rights, improved economic policy, medical technology and accessibility, and, of course, the imperative to recognize death as a limitation to overcome. While those are just some examples of the body of work offered by the USTP, I believe they are the most important foundations, as from them, all other potential improvements for the human condition are possible. 

We Transhumanists are the gray area in between the madness that is the two-party system in America. We unfortunately inhabit the very system we were warned about in our earliest days as a country. We offer rational and compassionate alternatives to the systems Americans have been repeatedly manipulated into accepting. Where other parties seek to polarize the citizenry, we seek to unite it with scientific and technological solutions to the issues that have us at each other’s throats. With respect to urgency, I will only illustrate existing or easily obtainable technologies here. Consider, for example, the abortion issue. To us, it is no issue at all, as there already exist ample resources for preventing unintended pregnancy. The education and social studies are there to better inform young people of the consequences of irresponsible behavior.  We are steady in our call that life is the most important argument and support those approaches which lengthen the lives and improve the health of all humankind, regardless of any differences. If a few more million dollars were devoted to the works of visionaries like Aubrey de Grey, aging and disease could be eradicated in a few short years. With some more million dollars, we could eliminate the arguments regarding abortion by making the practice obsolete with technologies such as indefinite stasis and ectogenesis. Such advances would render divisive moral arguments moot. 

The incorporation of artificial narrow intelligence (ANI) assistance and oversight  into governance and healthcare could virtually eliminate malpractice and marginal qualification in both fields. Justice can be free of bias with ANI incorporated into the process; lawyers and judges and even jurors can be in complete understanding of the law and precedents in question. This could shrink the margin for abuse and error to nearly null in real time. With medical assistance ANI, doctors can access the diagnostic power of the sum total of human medical knowledge instantaneously, never leaving a patient undiagnosed or misdiagnosed until it’s too late to save that individual. In matters where interaction is the essential element, such as international relations, local law enforcement, or conveying your symptoms to your doctor, language and communication need no longer be a divider riddled with misunderstanding and lost cultural context. Imagine how these three simple applications of technology could change the fabric of society, and it is ready and applicable right now. Right now, humans are fighting in the streets for equal justice, equal access, and equal treatment; the wise application of artificial intelligence systems can deliver on those demands and act as a safeguard against those that currently engage in the manipulation of those systems or underperform and cost lives. How many loved ones are in prison for crimes they didn’t commit, but hadn’t the resources to fight the argument the state was infinitely capable of delivering? How many loved ones are dead because the doctors in the local hospital were either prevented from accessing other techniques or unaware of them? How many people are dead under the knee or boot of a government that has no meaningful oversight or accountability to the people it was constructed to serve?

We at the USTP believe that human suffering must end, but moreover, it can end if we begin actively applying the advancements we have right now. This isn’t some far-flung future fiction we’d all like to see someday; indeed, “someday” for much of this was ten years ago. So while we are out there advocating for rights and justice, let’s begin to embrace the tools that can ensure the equal application and universally competent execution of these goals. Let us be the tool users that we’ve evolved to be. 

C. H. Antony is Vice-Secretary of the United States Transhumanist Party.

Near-Term Improvements to Cities to Combat COVID-19 – Article by Pavel Ilin

Near-Term Improvements to Cities to Combat COVID-19 – Article by Pavel Ilin

logo_bg

Pavel Ilin


While we are still on lockdown and there is no certainty about when we can safely reopen everything, it is worth reflecting on how we organize our living spaces. COVID-19 is not the first and not the last virus-caused pandemic humanity will have to encounter, and we should be prepared.

Especially we should focus on what improvements can be implemented right away. But first, let’s analyze how the novel coronavirus is spreading.

Virus transmission

It appears that viruses travel inside of droplets. Virus particles can’t travel far just in the air. If that were the case, and the virus could be distributed by the ventilation system within the buildings or in public transportation, then the infection rate would be much higher. We don’t see that yet, and therefore we can conclude it is not happening, and we are very fortunate in that case.

It seems that the virus can be transmitted through close contact (3-4 feet, 1-2 meters away) from person to person. (Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Frequently Asked Questions. Spread.) Also it can be transmitted through surfaces. It has been observed that the virus can live on surfaces in some cases between a few hours and few days. (Source: CDC updates COVID-19 transmission webpage to clarify information about types of spread.)

The challenge is that in a lot of cases, people carry the virus asymptomatically, and they have no idea that they carry a potential threat to the lives of others.

How can we reduce spread?

I can identify 4 levels of control where we can intervene and stop or reduce spread of the virus:

1. Eliminating the source of infection

Efforts could be devoted toward implementing automated virus checks while people come into buildings. We can do automated temperature screens, measure oxygen level in the blood, and implement more potential technologies powered with artificial intelligence (AI) systems to come, which can help with automated and non-invasive testing.

Of course this raises big questions about surveillance, collecting data without people’s consent, and potential discriminatory practices. This is another big conversation we should have.

2. Administrative control

Social distancing – it’s what we are doing right now. And it’s not only a stay-at-home solution. We can also make public spaces less dense. We can put fewer chairs from conference rooms, fewer desks in the offices. Most of the office jobs do not require physical presence. And many manual-labor jobs can be automated.

Of course if we ask people to stay at home, they have to be able to stay at home. First, people should have a home to stay in. To ensure that everyone has a place to stay, we can use rapid 3D printing of the houses and give them to the people who cannot afford to take out a house loan or make a rent payment. 

We can see how job markets have shrunk during recent the pandemic, and many people simply cannot afford to stay at home. Pandemic or not, you have basic needs such as food, hygiene, communication, and healthcare. And these needs must be met in order to keep people in a good physical and mental state. I believe that introduction of some form of basic income would be a good solution.

3. Engineering controls

Through engineering tools we can upgrade our spaces without fundamental rebuilding of the infrastructure.

Increasing ventilation rates in the rooms allows one to bring in more outdoor air,  and the implementation of personalized ventilation and a personalized exhaust system for airborne infection control can reduce the risk of airborne infection significantly. (Source: Ventilation control for airborne transmission of human exhaled bio-aerosols in buildings. Hua Qian, Xiaohong Zheng. J Thorac Dis. 2018 Jul; 10(Suppl 19): S2295–S2304. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.01.24)

Installation of the UV-C light within the ventilation system can clear the airflow from any germs and viruses. (Source: Aerosol Susceptibility of Influenza Virus to UV-C Light. James J. McDevitt, Stephen N. Rudnick, Lewis J. Radonovich, Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012 Mar; 78(6): 1666–1669. doi: 10.1128/AEM.06960-11)

As was mentioned before, viruses can survive on the surfaces for some time and can be transmitted while people touch the surface. Through remote-control technologies we reduce interaction with surfaces to minimum. Light switches, elevator buttons, doors, and other aspects of a building can be controlled through the phone or other devices without direct interaction.

4. Personal protective equipment

This level is especially important during an active pandemic situation. Masks, gloves, and face-protection shields, should be produced in advance, stockpiled so they can be available for the people, especially for essential workers when they need this equipment.

Conclusion

To implement all these preventive measures, we don’t have to invent anything and completely rebuild cities’ infrastructure. All technologies are there; we just need to use them rationally and be willing to invest some time and effort into implementation. In the next article we will look into the future and talk about more radical city planning approaches,  such as 3D cities and Arcologies.

Pavel Ilin is Secretary of the United States Transhumanist Party.