15-Day Exposure Period on Policy Proposals on Investigations and Emergency Declarations
The U.S. Transhumanist Party hereby opens a 15-day public exposure period on the proposals submitted by R. Nicholas Starr and Zach Richardson concerning investigations and emergency actions. The proposals are presented below, followed by initial feedback from USTP leadership. The public exposure period is intended to last until 12:01 a.m. U.S. Pacific Time on November 1, 2021.
During the exposure period, please post your comments on this thread. If you post comments intended to be considered in voting and/or amending any of these planks in any other electronic medium, please note that you thereby give your consent to have your comments reproduced with attribution or linked within this discussion thread, in order to direct members’ attention and consideration to them.
Given the nature of the proposals and depending on the input received regarding them, the U.S. Transhumanist Party reserves the right to put forward for a vote of the members either (1) the entirety of each proposal, (2) portions of each proposal, (3) some of the proposals but not others, or (4) none of the proposals. Also, the U.S. Transhumanist Party reserves the right to determine which document(s) of the U.S. Transhumanist Party, if any, would be open to amendment to include any of the contents of these proposals.
Proposals by R. Nicholas Starr
The following policy proposals seek to limit the power of USTP leadership during events of investigations and emergencies. I request these items are put to vote as soon as possible, after providing an appropriate exposure period for members to discuss, add, remove, or change things.
Proposal RNS-1. Guidelines for Investigations
As a data-driven political organization the United States Transhumanist Party (USTP), and its leadership acting on behalf of the USTP, must remain neutral in its official capacity during outside investigations into past, present, or future members until said investigations are complete and all facts are known and presented to USTP members. The USTP should also refrain from attempts to influence ongoing investigations or public perception while an investigation is taking place. Public statements of facts and acknowledgement of the situation is permissible, but statements must not stray into speculation. Once an investigation is complete the USTP can issue statements based solely on the facts and analysis thereof. This does NOT restrict an individual, regardless of their position in the USTP, from speaking out on an issue in their personal capacity, nor does it restrict a person from providing criticism of such personal statements in their own personal capacity.
The USTP can conduct its own investigations into matters affecting members on a case by case basis, as determined by a vote of the membership, and under the following limitations. Investigators must be impartial with no personal or professional connection to any of the parties involved in the investigation (accusers, the accused, or other individuals of interest sought for questioning in the investigation). Professional connections include but aren’t limited to current or former employees, advisors, board members, and interns for the person or organization under investigation as well as direct competitors of any party under investigation (you can’t investigate your competition). If an impartial investigator cannot be obtained, either from inside or outside our membership, then the investigation must be abandoned.
Internal investigations should not be intended to replace outside investigations and should be limited to how the incident under investigation impacts operation of the USTP. Consequences sought after the conclusion of the investigation shall be limited to administrative action available within the USTP. The USTP does not have the power to require action or consequences be made by outside organizations.
The purpose of the internal investigation shall be made known to the members with a summary of alleged offenses and what questions the investigation seeks to answer. This must be done in a professional manner, excluding personal opinion and potential bias.
Proposal RNS-2. Definitions and Restrictions on Emergency Actions
United States Transhumanist Party (USTP) leaders shall have the limited ability to declare, and act on, emergencies on behalf of its members. Such a declaration shall have no bearing on, or interfere with, applicable federal, state, and local laws.
When declaring an emergency the USTP leadership must publicly announce what the emergency is, why waiting to act would cause immediate increased harm, and the intended course of action sought by the USTP. This course of action must not deviate from, or spread beyond, the scope of the incident. Meaning any intended action must be clearly and directly related to the emergency.
An emergency shall be defined as an unexpected and immediate threat or active instance of the following, pending member further recommendations and approval by membership vote:
- Threat to life or public safety (threats to life extension shall NOT be included unless the emergency threatens an individual placed in preservation prior to the emergency, such as cryogenics)
- Natural disaster
- Humanitarian crisis
- Credible acts of violence
- Direct malicious attack, physical or digital, of USTP property
- Theft of USTP funds from an official account totaling over X% of the last known balance and more than $X. (Amounts to be decided based on current and future potential needs before vote)
It shall not include:
- Personal scandal
- Delays in research
- Matters of outside businesses or organizations
An emergency can only be declared in cases where delayed action would clearly cause increased harm based on the available evidence. If the emergency action is to take longer than 14 days, then it requires further approval by a vote of the membership.
Feedback on R. Nicholas Starr’s Proposals by USTP Leadership
The USTP Leadership offers a point-by-point analysis of Mr. Starr’s proposals below.
Proposal RNS-1. “As a data-driven political organization the United States Transhumanist Party (USTP), and its leadership acting on behalf of the USTP, must remain neutral in its official capacity during outside investigations into past, present, or future members until said investigations are complete and all facts are known and presented to USTP members.”
USTP Leadership Response: This appears to provide a blanket power to any “outside investigation”, however motivated and by whomever conducted. Just because an outside investigation is being conducted does not guarantee the objective or impartial nature of the investigator, particularly if the investigator is retained by a party with a preconceived interest in the outcome of the investigation. If the USTP leadership is unable to point out instances of obvious bias when they exist, this hampers objectivity and the search for truth. Moreover, if the rest of the world is free to comment and speculate on the subject of the investigation while the USTP’s ability to respond is muzzled, the USTP would necessarily be placed at a disadvantage relative to those who have no compunctions about making unsubstantiated claims.
Proposal RNS-1. “The USTP should also refrain from attempts to influence ongoing investigations or public perception while an investigation is taking place.”
USTP Leadership Response: Public perception often can be influenced far more rapidly than an official investigation can be conducted or concluded. The unfortunate truth is, in a social-media-dominated age, the court of public opinion has the power to affect an individual’s fate without utilizing any reasonable standard of evidence or waiting for the facts to come out. Sometimes the damage to a person’s reputation from unsubstantiated allegations in the court of public opinion can be immense. Without voices of reason being ready to counter unsubstantiated, character-assassinating allegations right away, good people’s future prospects may be damaged or destroyed because unscrupulous voices are the only ones which are allowed to be heard.
Proposal RNS-1. “Public statements of facts and acknowledgement of the situation is permissible, but statements must not stray into speculation.”
USTP Leadership Response: The USTP does not favor unsubstantiated speculation, either, but must remain free to point out when others engage in such speculation and when such others accuse without evidence.
Proposal RNS-1. “Once an investigation is complete the USTP can issue statements based solely on the facts and analysis thereof. ”
USTP Leadership Response: Again, this places too much power into the hands of an outside investigator, often appointed by entities with no affiliation or connection with the USTP, to determine what constitutes “facts and analysis” that are within the permissible realm of discussion. An outside investigator can easily present a selective, skewed, or biased portrayal, and the USTP should not relinquish its ability to inquire into and comment on facts and analytical interpretations that, for whatever reason, an outside investigator did not include in a public-facing report.
Proposal RNS-1. “ This does NOT restrict an individual, regardless of their position in the USTP, from speaking out on an issue in their personal capacity, nor does it restrict a person from providing criticism of such personal statements in their own personal capacity.”
USTP Leadership Response: The USTP leadership agrees with the principle behind the statement above.
Proposal RNS-1. “The USTP can conduct its own investigations into matters affecting members on a case by case basis, as determined by a vote of the membership, and under the following limitations.”
USTP Leadership Response: Requiring a vote of the members before conducting an internal investigation may have several undesirable consequences. First, if there is an action whose damaging effect is swiftly forthcoming, then the procedural steps required for a vote to be conducted may well come about much later than the damage has already been done. Second, it is often possible to investigate certain matters discreetly without damage to the reputation of the person(s) being investigated. Once a pending investigation is publicly announced and put to a vote of the members, the members are placed in the position of (1) knowing that there is an alleged transgression or set of transgressions, and (2) deciding whether a given person or persons is sufficiently likely to be guilty of that alleged transgression or set of transgressions so as to be investigated. This in itself can damage the reputation of the person(s) being investigated, even if the investigation ultimately clears them of any wrongdoing. Having at least a preliminary private process of examining any actions within the USTP would be beneficial in enabling the vast majority of potential issues to be identified and resolved without such reputational damage, and any issues brought before the members would be of such an egregious nature that private means did not suffice to resolve them.
Proposal RNS-1. “Investigators must be impartial with no personal or professional connection to any of the parties involved in the investigation (accusers, the accused, or other individuals of interest sought for questioning in the investigation). Professional connections include but aren’t limited to current or former employees, advisors, board members, and interns for the person or organization under investigation as well as direct competitors of any party under investigation (you can’t investigate your competition). If an impartial investigator cannot be obtained, either from inside or outside our membership, then the investigation must be abandoned.”
USTP Leadership Response: The transhumanist community is small enough, and collaborations on projects by transhumanists are frequent enough, that it is difficult to find any person in the community who does not have a personal or professional connection of some sort with most others in the community. The proposal above also describes the possibility of an outside investigator; however, the outside investigator would likely need to be paid, and the USTP is an organization with extremely limited resources. Furthermore, the limitations above would create de facto immunity for someone who develops such extensive personal and/or professional connections that anyone who could possibly competently investigate that person would be precluded from doing so because of such connections.
Proposal RNS-1. “Internal investigations should not be intended to replace outside investigations and should be limited to how the incident under investigation impacts operation of the USTP. Consequences sought after the conclusion of the investigation shall be limited to administrative action available within the USTP.”
USTP Leadership Response: The USTP already has a process for actions to be taken in response to violations of our Guidelines for Community Conduct. That process does not require an independent investigation, which generally would be too time-consuming to address the most typical kinds of violations, which are at once blatant, public, and quick to have their effects. Thus, if the only consequences are any “administrative action available within the USTP”, then the internal investigation becomes an unnecessary instrument.
Proposal RNS-1. “The USTP does not have the power to require action or consequences be made by outside organizations.”
USTP Leadership Response: While the USTP, as a practical matter, indeed cannot require another organization to take an action, the USTP does have the ability to express an opinion regarding the actions taken by any other organization and whether or not such actions align with the values and goals of the USTP, as well as whether or not such actions are beneficial to the transhumanist movement or are meritorious more generally. As an organization with definite views and definite outlooks on a large number of issues, projects, and people, the USTP is surely within its rights to express its points of view and, when needed, urge that certain courses of action be taken by other organizations and individuals. The USTP does not have the power to compel those courses of action, but expressing silence on matters that are likely to influence the future of the transhumanist movement is not advisable if by speaking out the USTP is able to make a difference in shaping public opinion.
Proposal RNS-1. “The purpose of the internal investigation shall be made known to the members with a summary of alleged offenses and what questions the investigation seeks to answer. This must be done in a professional manner, excluding personal opinion and potential bias.”
USTP Leadership Response: Again, doing this may actually create unduly unfavorable impressions of the person(s) being investigated before the investigation is complete. There could be many conceivable cases in which, if an investigation is undertaken, those being investigated would actually prefer that the investigation be done privately and discreetly, at least as an initial approach.
***
Proposal RNS-2. “When declaring an emergency the USTP leadership must publicly announce what the emergency is, why waiting to act would cause immediate increased harm, and the intended course of action sought by the USTP. ”
USTP Leadership Response: The USTP leadership does not oppose the practice of making such a public announcement and will endeavor to do so in the future.
Proposal RNS-2. “This course of action must not deviate from, or spread beyond, the scope of the incident. Meaning any intended action must be clearly and directly related to the emergency.”
USTP Leadership Response: It would seem to be common sense that actions to address an emergency should be related to that emergency. However, there are circumstances where it may be a matter of interpretation whether a particular action is “clearly and directly related to the emergency” or somehow “deviates from” or “spreads beyond” it. If questioned on a particular action, the USTP leadership should be able to provide an explanation of its relationship to the emergency, and that explanation should be given deference unless it is completely nonsensical by any reasonable person’s interpretation.
Proposal RNS-2. “An emergency shall be defined as an unexpected and immediate threat or active instance of the following, pending member further recommendations and approval by membership vote […]”
USTP Leadership Response: The process of arranging a member vote is generally too logistically intense and time-consuming to be feasibly undertaken in cases of a genuine emergency, where swift action is required. It is possible to take a member poll after the fact of a particular major action, to determine whether or not the active portion of the membership agrees with the action that was taken. This was done, for instance, in response to the U.S. Transhumanist Party Statement of Support for Aubrey de Grey, where a member poll shows, as of October 16, 2021, 42 of the 58 members voting (72.4%) expressing agreement with the statement, 10 (17.2%) expressing disagreement, and 6 (10.3%) expressing no opinion or a neutral position. However, in a genuine emergency, such member polling should be done only when there is sufficient reprieve from the pressing need to respond to events that the poll could be accommodated without compromising the ability to actually address the emergency.
Proposal RNS-2. “Threat to life or public safety (threats to life extension shall NOT be included unless the emergency threatens an individual placed in preservation prior to the emergency, such as cryogenics)“.
USTP Leadership Response: Threats to the future and reputation of the life-extension movement and the prospect of attaining radical life extension within our lifetimes should indeed be considered grounds for declaring an emergency, particularly when such threats pertain to the possible derailment of the life-extension cause through hostile characterizations within the court of public opinion. The USTP leadership reminds members that the immutable Core Ideal 1 of the USTP is that “The Transhumanist Party supports significant life extension achieved through the progress of science and technology.” Any act, behavior, allegation, or decision which threatens the fulfillment of Core Ideal 1 and where the USTP has even a possibility of averting the threat through a swift and decisive response, should indeed be subject to potential treatment as an emergency.
Proposal RNS-2.
“Natural disaster
Humanitarian crisis
Credible acts of violence
Direct malicious attack, physical or digital, of USTP property”
USTP Leadership Response: The USTP leadership agrees that these would be valid reasons to declare an emergency.
Proposal RNS-2. “Theft of USTP funds from an official account totaling over X% of the last known balance and more than $X. (Amounts to be decided based on current and future potential needs before vote)”
USTP Leadership Response: The USTP does not currently hold an official account for funds, so this is not a situation that can arise at this time. However, in the future, if any theft were undertaken, this would be grounds for declaring an emergency if necessary. It is not clear why a threshold for doing so is proposed here, as any misappropriation of funds should be able to be dealt with swiftly and effectively.
Proposal RNS-2. “It shall not include:
- Personal scandal
- Delays in research
- Matters of outside businesses or organizations“
USTP Leadership Response: The USTP leadership considers these exclusions to essentially negate any power to declare an emergency. Manufactured personal scandal is one of the easiest tactics to use in today’s cultural and social-media environment in order to damage a person’s career, livelihood, and reputation, without having sufficient evidence to do so within the criteria of any formal legal system. Tying the USTP leadership’s hands in such situations only lends additional power to those who would seek to deploy such a reprehensible tactic with impunity. Delays in research that affects life extension could be a matter of life or death for many transhumanists, and also contravene Core Ideal 1 of the U.S. Transhumanist Party; the USTP leadership should have the authority to endeavor to overcome such delays through all efficacious means, particularly by shaping public opinion if the roadblocks to the research’s continuation are cultural and attitudinal. Furthermore, if “outside businesses or organizations” engage in conduct that materially affects the future of the transhumanist movement, including public perception of transhumanism and life extension, then removing the ability of the USTP to comment on such conduct would simply remove the USTP from the ability to influence such public perception, leaving such influence solely to others, including those hostile to our movement. The USTP leadership does not understand why our organization should intentionally handicap itself when our movement’s detractors intend to do no such thing and have only escalated their attacks as the movement has been reaching various milestones of success.
Proposal RNS-2. “An emergency can only be declared in cases where delayed action would clearly cause increased harm based on the available evidence. If the emergency action is to take longer than 14 days, then it requires further approval by a vote of the membership.”
USTP Leadership Response: Again, criteria such as “clearly cause increased harm based on the available evidence” would be subject to interpretation, and a member who disagrees with the USTP leadership’s judgment as to what is likely to cause harm may then invoke such a clause to assert a veto power over USTP leadership’s actions. The 14-day threshold for a membership vote is unreasonably short, as most membership votes have historically taken longer than 14 days if one considers the prior exposure period alone, but the vote itself should also be open for a reasonably long amount of time to give any member who wishes to vote the opportunity to do so. If this is followed in the circumstances of an emergency, chances are that the rapid events, to which the USTP would need to respond, would have already taken their toll in the form of the undesirable consequences that may occur in the absence of USTP action. Furthermore, the timing of the resolution of the emergency is contingent on a variety of external events and decisions over which the USTP leadership has no control; however, the USTP leadership can anticipate and has previously experienced situations where pressing situation can last far beyond 14 days, if, for instance, there is a standoff among the individuals and external organizations involved, or if the publication of information related to the matter in question is expected to be spread out over a longer time period (even as social-media commentary on the same matter and its consideration within the court of public opinion continue unabated).
Proposal by Zach Richardson
Proposal ZR-1.
Proposal in Support of Decisive Executive Action in Times of Emergency:
When executive action is required in the face of a serious threat, the Chairman must have the authority to act decisively.
This proposal reasserts the Chairman’s authority to act decisively in defense of individuals, groups, or organizations by expressing the delegated support of the Party for the individual, group, or organization under assault. The Chairman retains the authority to advocate for those individuals, groups, or organizations whose goals align with those of the Party. The Chairman is not required to seek the approval of a majority of the party membership to act on behalf of the party, nor does he have to provide justification for his support.
The authority of the Chairman to act on behalf of the party is not intended to supersede the authority of the Party to determine the Party’s position on a particular issue, nor is it intended to diminish the responsibility of the Party to take a position on a particular issue.
The Chairman will retain the authority to act on behalf of the Party, at his or her own discretion, to advocate on behalf of the Party and its members in the event of an emergency, defined as any event that may significantly impact the realization of the goals of the Party as outlined in the Platform.
The Party will seek to continuously empower the Chairman to act on behalf of its members by codifying his/her authority to do so in a manner that is consistent with the principles and standards of the Party, and is consistent with the existing authority of the Party to advocate on behalf of its members as a whole.
The Chairman is empowered to act as the Party’s representative, and to make statements on behalf of the Party, to the media and the public, to advocate on behalf of any individual, group or organization that supports the Party and its Platform, its members and the Party’s philosophy, goals and objectives, to promote the Party’s agenda, candidates and policies, and to respond to attacks on the Party, or on its members, allies or affiliates.
The Chairman has the ability to designate individuals and organizations as “allies” of the Party at his or her discretion, and to permit such “allies” to represent themselves to the public and the media as “allies” and “members” of the Party. Such “allies” are encouraged but not required to support the Platform.
Party members may not seek to compel the Chairman to retract any statement made on behalf of the Party or its allies, affiliates or members; nor may any Party member seek to compel the Chairman to retract any statement made on behalf of the Party or its allies, affiliates, or members by anyone who was so designated by the Chairman.
The Chairman and any of his designees shall ensure the following:
- The Party is adequately represented in all communications with the public and the media. In some cases, it may be appropriate to have two or more representatives from the Party speak on behalf of the Party.
- The Party is able to provide key information to the public and the media in a timely manner, through press releases, interviews, and particularly social media commentary.
- The Party is able to have a significant and positive impact on the outcome or resolution of the emergency.
- The Party is able to respond to attacks on the Party, or on any of its members, allies, or affiliates.
If any Party member seeks to compel the Chairman to retract any statement made on behalf of the Party, or its allies, affiliates or members, or any statement made on behalf of the Party by anyone who was designated an ally by the Chairman, the Chairman may assert that the member in question is acting in violation of the Party’s principles and its standards.
The Party pledges to empower the Chairman in a manner that is consistent with the principles and standards of the Party, and is consistent with the existing authority of the Party to advocate on behalf of its members and its Platform. The Party further pledges to make every effort to ensure that the Party, its members, and the Chairman are able to advocate for the Party and its members on a permanent and eternal basis.
It is in the interest of the Party to remain relevant, not only to the Party itself, but to the public, and it is in the spirit of that interest in which the Party empower the Chairman.
The Party therefore pledges to make a good-faith effort to ensure that the Chairman has the opportunity to respond to attacks on the Party, or on any of its members, allies, or affiliates, and finally to ensure that the Chairman is able to engage in the activities described in this proposal on a permanent and hopefully indefinite basis.
Feedback on Zach Richardson’s Proposals by USTP Leadership
The USTP leadership concurs with Proposal ZR-1 from Zach Richardson. Recent events have shown that the transhumanist movement is coming under increasing attack just as it is achieving new milestones in terms of publicity and acquisition of financial resources. We live in a make-or-break moment, not just for human civilization more generally, but for the transhumanist and life-extension movements in particular. It is essential for USTP leadership to have the authority to respond in defense of the values, people, and organizations which the USTP has always supported since its founding, even as those values, people, and organizations come under an unprecedented number of coordinated and insidious attacks. If we bind ourselves by excessive process, but our adversaries do not, then we set ourselves up to lose. If, however, we are able to act swiftly to resolve situations of emergency, this will afford more time to calmly and deliberatively approach most matters under the USTP’s purview, including the ability to organize more member votes on various matters if leadership’s attention is not continually occupied with how to address time-sensitive emergencies in the “procedurally correct” way. Our movement is under attack today, and we need to defend it today. In coming years and epochs, we will be thankful that we did.