Tag: morphological freedom

Report on the Montana Right to Try Act – Analysis by Shamar White

Report on the Montana Right to Try Act – Analysis by Shamar White

Comments 0 Comment

logo_bg

Shamar White

Introduction

The Montana Right to Try (RTT) Act, particularly as expanded through Senate Bill 422 (SB 422), constitutes a landmark in the evolution of health policy, emphasizing patient autonomy, innovative medical practices, and access to experimental treatments. This legislation resonates deeply with the principles articulated by the U.S. Transhumanist Party (USTP) Platform and the Transhumanist Bill of Rights (TBR), Version 3.0. By dismantling bureaucratic barriers and facilitating the pursuit of transformative life-extension technologies, the RTT Act embodies a forward-thinking vision of autonomy and technological advancement.

Legislative Context and Provisions

The RTT Act, enhanced by SB 422, builds on existing right-to-try frameworks by expanding access to investigational treatments. Notably, it removes the terminal illness requirement, broadening eligibility to individuals with chronic or life-threatening conditions. This shift underscores a commitment to medical inclusivity, mirroring the USTP’s call for universal access to health innovations (USTP Platform, Sections V, VIII). The Act also reinforces informed consent protocols and provides liability protections for providers and manufacturers who act in good faith.

Alignment with Transhumanist Ideology

The RTT Act’s provisions align with several core transhumanist principles:

  1. Empowerment Through Autonomy
    The Act prioritizes individual decision-making in healthcare, granting patients the right to pursue experimental treatments beyond the constraints of traditional regulatory processes. This reflects Article X of the TBR, which champions morphological freedom—the right to alter one’s physical state without external interference.
  2. Acceleration of Innovation
    By bypassing protracted FDA approval timelines for therapies that have completed Phase I safety trials, the RTT Act fosters a pro-innovation environment. This approach aligns with the USTP’s advocacy for reducing barriers to medical progress (USTP Platform, Sections VIII, LXXXV).
  3. Ethical Commitment to Longevity
    The RTT Act’s emphasis on life-extension technologies resonates with the TBR’s emphasis on combating involuntary aging and enhancing health through science and technology (TBR, Articles IV, VI).

Scholarly Evaluation and Broader Implications

Academic evaluations of right-to-try laws suggest both potential benefits and challenges. Proponents highlight the laws’ capacity to accelerate access to life-saving treatments for patients who have exhausted conventional options (Gaffney et al., 2019). However, critics caution against the risks of insufficient efficacy data and financial exploitation under such frameworks (Sullivan, 2021).

The RTT Act addresses some of these concerns by mandating informed consent and establishing a safety threshold via Phase I trials. Yet, further measures, such as enhanced transparency in treatment outcomes and pricing controls, could strengthen its ethical and equitable foundations. These additions would align with the USTP’s commitment to universal accessibility and technological fairness.

The Montana RTT Act represents a significant policy innovation, aligning with transhumanist ideals of autonomy, medical inclusivity, and the pursuit of longevity. By enabling patients to bypass bureaucratic delays and access experimental therapies, the Act exemplifies a transformative approach to healthcare. However, to fully realize its potential, ongoing evaluations and enhancements are necessary to address ethical, safety, and accessibility challenges. These efforts will ensure that the RTT framework remains a model of progressive policy in advancing human health and autonomy.

Key Provisions of the Montana Right to Try Act

Elimination of Terminal Illness Requirement

The Montana Right to Try Act (RTT), as amended by Senate Bill 422 (SB 422), represents a transformative step in expanding access to experimental treatments. By redefining eligibility to include individuals with chronic, life-threatening, or debilitating conditions, the Act significantly broadens the scope of investigational therapy access. This provision, rooted in patient-centric principles, aligns with the U.S. Transhumanist Party (USTP) Platform and the Transhumanist Bill of Rights (TBR), which prioritize individual autonomy, the democratization of medical innovation, and the eradication of suffering through technological advancements.

Specific Provisions and Implications

SB 422 removes the previous restriction limiting investigational treatments to individuals diagnosed with terminal illnesses. The previous definition of terminal illness encompassed progressive diseases that were irreversible and, without life-sustaining procedures, would result in imminent death. Now, the expanded eligibility includes patients with chronic, life-threatening, or debilitating conditions.

Conditions newly eligible under this framework include:

  • Chronic illnesses: Such as advanced rheumatoid arthritis or multiple sclerosis.
  • Life-threatening conditions: Such as severe heart disease or progressive kidney failure.
  • Debilitating conditions: Such as early-stage ALS or rare genetic disorders that significantly impair quality of life.

This expanded definition addresses a critical gap in medical accessibility by enabling individuals who are not imminently dying to seek investigational treatments, prioritizing unmet medical needs over rigid prognostic criteria.

Alignment with Transhumanist Principles

The redefinition of eligibility for experimental therapies reflects the USTP’s advocacy for equitable access to life-enhancing medical innovations:

         1. Broadening the Scope of Health Interventions

  • USTP Platform, Section V calls for research to eradicate disease and illness for all sapient beings, not merely those in terminal stages. By including patients with chronic and debilitating conditions, SB 422 promotes this comprehensive vision.
  • The TBR, Article IV, emphasizes the right to access treatments that mitigate involuntary suffering, further underscoring the transhumanist commitment to improving health and extending quality of life.
    ***
    2. Advancing Individual Autonomy in Healthcare
  • USTP Platform, Section VIII highlights the importance of maximum individual liberty in accessing treatments that enhance the human condition. By circumventing traditional clinical trial constraints, SB 422 empowers individuals to make autonomous decisions about their healthcare trajectories.

Addressing Limitations in Traditional Clinical Trials

Traditional clinical trials often exclude patients with chronic or debilitating conditions to ensure trial consistency and minimize uncertainty in outcomes. While methodologically sound for regulatory purposes, this exclusion leaves many without access to potentially transformative treatments. SB 422 addresses this gap by bypassing rigid trial inclusion criteria, allowing broader patient participation in medical innovation.

The Act’s inclusivity democratizes experimental therapies, offering hope to patients historically marginalized in clinical research. This shift aligns with the transhumanist ethos of leveraging technological advancements to extend healthspan and quality of life for all, irrespective of immediate mortality risk.

The elimination of the terminal illness requirement under SB 422 signifies a paradigm shift in the accessibility of investigational therapies. By expanding eligibility to patients with chronic and debilitating conditions, the Montana RTT Act embodies the transhumanist commitment to eradicating suffering and democratizing medical innovation. Through its alignment with the USTP Platform and the TBR, this provision sets a precedent for progressive, inclusive healthcare policies that prioritize the needs and autonomy of individuals over bureaucratic constraints.

Emphasis on Informed Consent in the Montana Right to Try Act

The Montana Right to Try Act (RTT), as expanded by Senate Bill 422 (SB 422), introduces stringent provisions for informed consent, ensuring that patients seeking access to investigational therapies retain autonomy over their medical decisions. This emphasis on informed consent aligns with the transhumanist ethos of morphological freedom and individual choice as codified in the U.S. Transhumanist Party (USTP) Platform and the Transhumanist Bill of Rights (TBR). By fostering transparency, comprehension, and ethical engagement, the Act safeguards patient autonomy while promoting trust in life-enhancing medical interventions.

Specific Provisions and Requirements

SB 422 codifies detailed informed consent procedures, requiring healthcare providers to ensure that patients are comprehensively educated about the following aspects of investigational therapies:

         1. Experimental Nature of Treatment:

  • Patients must be explicitly informed that the treatment is not FDA-approved beyond Phase I trials, highlighting the investigational status and the limited understanding of its safety, efficacy, and potential risks.
    ***
    2. Known Risks and Benefits    :
  • Providers are obligated to disclose all available data on side effects, complications, and outcomes associated with the therapy, enabling patients to evaluate the potential trade-offs.
    ***
    3. Alternative Options    :
  • Patients must be informed of other approved treatments or clinical trials that may address their condition, fostering informed decision-making by presenting all viable paths.
    ***
    4. Cost and Financial Responsibility    :
  • Patients must acknowledge their understanding of therapy-related expenses, including potential out-of-pocket costs and insurance coverage limitations.
    ***
    5. Voluntary Nature    :
  • Providers must ensure that patients affirm their decision to proceed is made voluntarily, free from external pressure or coercion.

These measures ensure that individuals retain control over their healthcare trajectory, reflecting the transhumanist principle of morphological freedom as articulated in TBR, Article IX.

Ethical Alignment and Broader Implications

The Act’s emphasis on informed consent aligns with the Belmont Report’s foundational ethical principles, particularly respect for persons, which underscores the need for voluntary, informed participation in research and experimental therapies. By mandating thorough consent processes, the RTT Act ensures that patients are active participants in their medical decisions rather than passive recipients.

  • USTP Platform, Sections V and VIII, advocates for maximizing individual access to transformative medical technologies that enhance health and extend life. Informed consent provisions within SB 422 ensure that such access is accompanied by comprehensive understanding, safeguarding ethical implementation.

Enhancing Informed-Consent Processes

While the current provisions of SB 422 establish a robust framework, the effectiveness of informed consent could be compromised if documentation is overly complex or if providers fail to allocate sufficient time to patient education. To mitigate these risks, the following recommendations are proposed:

          1. Standardized Templates with Accessible Components:

  • Plain-language explanations: Simplify medical terminology while maintaining precision, empowering individuals with diverse levels of health literacy.
  • Visual aids: Incorporate infographics, dynamic charts, and animations to demystify complex therapies, such as nanomedicine or gene editing.
  • Summary sections: Highlight key information on risks, benefits, and costs for quick and clear comprehension.
    ***
    2. Neutral Third-Party Verification    :
  • Introduce third-party systems, leveraging human expertise and AI-driven cognitive assessment tools, to confirm patient understanding.
  • For instance, interactive sessions where patients explain the therapy in their own words could verify comprehension and reinforce voluntary decision-making.
    ***
    3. Digital Platforms and Multilingual Accessibility    :
  • Develop online consent modules with adaptive content to match individual learning preferences.
  • Utilize AI-powered translation services to ensure linguistic and cultural nuances are accurately conveyed.
  • Incorporate immersive virtual reality (VR) demonstrations to simulate treatment processes, offering patients a realistic understanding of their options.

Informed consent is a cornerstone of transhumanist ethics, empowering individuals to make deliberate choices about integrating transformative technologies into their lives. The focus on comprehensive, accessible, and patient-centered consent processes ensures that individuals actively participate in their own evolution, aligning with the transhumanist goals of autonomy, innovation, and equitable access to life-enhancing interventions.

By adopting these recommendations, the Montana RTT Act could further strengthen its commitment to patient autonomy and innovation, ensuring that experimental therapies are deployed ethically and inclusively.

Protections for Providers and Manufacturers in the Montana Right to Try Act

The Montana Right to Try (RTT) Act, as expanded by Senate Bill 422 (SB 422), includes provisions granting immunity from liability to physicians and drug manufacturers contingent on their adherence to good faith practices and obtaining informed consent. This legal framework not only reduces the risk of litigation for parties involved in the provision of experimental therapies but also fosters a conducive environment for medical innovation. From a transhumanist perspective, this provision aligns with the ideals of morphological freedom and incentivizes the development of transformative life-extension and health-improvement technologies.

Legal and Ethical Provisions for Immunity

Under the RTT Act, healthcare providers and manufacturers are shielded from lawsuits related to the outcomes of investigational drug use, provided they:

  1. Act in good faith.
  2. Obtain clear and documented informed consent from patients.
  3. Comply with established guidelines for investigational treatments.

This immunity ensures that parties acting ethically and responsibly can innovate without the constant threat of punitive litigation stemming from unforeseen adverse effects.

Definition of Good Faith

Good-faith practices are defined by adherence to ethical standards, transparent communication of risks, and diligent compliance with investigational protocols. Immunity does not extend to reckless or unethical behavior, as the law’s requirements for informed consent create a mechanism for safeguarding patient interests.

Alignment with Transhumanist Ideals

The immunity provision reflects Section VIII of the U.S. Transhumanist Party (USTP) Platform, which advocates for maximizing liberty in engaging with scientific and technological innovation. By reducing the barriers to entry for small biotech firms and independent researchers, the RTT Act democratizes the field of experimental medicine, fostering a culture of bold innovation.

Additionally, these protections resonate with the Transhumanist Bill of Rights (TBR), Article IX, which underscores the importance of morphological freedom and the autonomy to pursue transformative medical technologies. By incentivizing providers to develop novel therapies, this provision supports the broader transhumanist vision of overcoming biological limitations and extending human healthspan.

Challenges and Risks

Despite its potential, the immunity provision carries risks that must be addressed to ensure ethical compliance and safeguard patient safety:

  1. Potential for Ethical Lapses:
    Immunity could inadvertently shield bad actors from accountability, leading to unethical practices or substandard care.
  2. Risk of Financial Exploitation:
    Manufacturers may exploit immunity by charging exorbitant prices for investigational therapies, undermining equitable access.
  3. Patient Safety Concerns:
    Without rigorous safeguards, patients may be exposed to treatments that lack sufficient scientific validation.

Recommendations for Ethical and Technological Enhancements

To balance the need for innovation with ethical oversight and affordability, the following measures are proposed:

          1. Establishment of Independent Ethics Boards

  • Regional ethical review panels composed of bioethicists, technologists, and medical professionals should evaluate investigational treatment proposals, ensuring alignment with safety and efficacy benchmarks.
    ***
    2. Use of Blockchain for Accountability
  • Blockchain technology can create immutable records of informed consent, treatment protocols, and oversight evaluations, fostering transparency.
  • Example: A provider administering gene-editing therapy could record each stage of treatment, securing patient trust through transparent documentati
    ***
    3. Mandatory Pricing Transparency
  • Require manufacturers to disclose production costs and justify pricing models in a publicly accessible database.
  • Deploy AI analytics to monitor pricing trends and identify unjustifiable spikes, ensuring affordability and equity.
    ***
    4. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) for Collective Funding
  • DAOs could democratize funding for experimental treatments, allowing transparent contributions to influence priorities and impact.
    ***
    5. Evidence-Driven Standards and Multidimensional Safeguards
  • Treatments must meet minimum safety benchmarks, such as Phase I FDA trials or equivalent international standards.
  • Create a global transhumanist registry to track the progress of investigational therapies and results transparently.
    ***
    6. Real-Time Patient Feedback Via Wearable Technologies
  • Use wearable devices or implants to monitor treatment efficacy and adverse effects, ensuring real-time data collection for continuous improvement.
    ***
    7. Ethics Committee Involvement with AI Tools
  • Equip ethics committees with AI-driven decision-support systems to analyze clinical data, predict outcomes, and flag potential violations.

Transhumanist Perspective on Immunity Provisions

The immunity provisions of the RTT Act are crucial for fostering an environment of accelerated medical innovation. From a transhumanist viewpoint, they enable the rapid development and dissemination of life-enhancing therapies while mitigating the risks associated with bureaucratic stagnation. However, immunity must be paired with robust safeguards to prevent misuse and ensure ethical compliance.

By leveraging cutting-edge technologies such as AI, blockchain, and wearables, the RTT Act can balance innovation with accountability. These measures not only protect patients but also reinforce public trust in transformative medical advancements, furthering the transhumanist goal of extending health and human potential.

Circumvention of FDA Approval Timelines in the Montana Right to Try Act

The Montana Right to Try (RTT) Act, augmented by Senate Bill 422 (SB 422), includes provisions that allow patients to access investigational therapies after completion of Phase I FDA safety trials but before full FDA approval. This paradigm-shifting policy accelerates access to experimental treatments, prioritizing individual autonomy and rapid innovation. From a transhumanist perspective, this provision epitomizes the movement’s commitment to empowering individuals to transcend biological limitations while promoting a pro-innovation environment.

Provisions and Implications

Circumventing Bureaucratic Delays

Under the traditional FDA approval framework, investigational therapies undergo an extensive process spanning 10–15 years, encompassing Phase II and Phase III trials. While these stages aim to validate efficacy and long-term safety, they often delay access to potentially life-saving treatments for critically ill patients. The RTT Act bypasses these protracted timelines, enabling access to therapies that have passed Phase I trials, where basic safety has been demonstrated.

Phase I trials involve rigorous testing to determine a drug’s interaction with the human body, including tolerance levels, acute side effects, and potential benefits. Conducted with 20–80 participants, these trials establish a foundation of safety, with approximately 70% of therapies progressing to Phase II (FDA, n.d.). By granting access post-Phase I, the RTT Act ensures patients can benefit from innovative treatments years ahead of full FDA approval.

Advancing Real-World Data Collection

The provision not only expands access but also fosters a pro-innovation environment by allowing real-world data collection from early adopters. Real-world data, obtained outside controlled clinical trial settings, contributes to understanding treatment efficacy and safety across diverse populations. This aligns with Section VIII of the U.S. Transhumanist Party (USTP) Platform, which emphasizes accelerating access to health-enhancing technologies while promoting evidence-based innovation.

Alignment with Transhumanist Ideals

Individual Autonomy

By circumventing traditional approval timelines, the RTT Act upholds morphological freedom, as articulated in Article IX of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights (TBR). This principle emphasizes individuals’ rights to make autonomous decisions about their health and access transformative therapies without bureaucratic interference.

Pro-Innovation Ethos

The RTT Act’s prioritization of rapid accessibility resonates with the transhumanist goal of transcending biological limitations through technological advancement. By expediting access to investigational treatments, the Act provides a framework for iterative development, where patient outcomes inform continuous improvement.

Ethical Safeguards through AI

Critics may argue that bypassing later trial phases risks prioritizing speed over comprehensive safety validation. However, leveraging AI-driven predictive models mitigates these risks. AI tools can analyze historical trial data, monitor real-world outcomes, and predict potential adverse effects, enhancing both patient safety and confidence in experimental therapies.

Recommendations for Enhancing Safeguards

While the RTT Act’s provisions are transformative, implementing additional measures would align with transhumanist principles and address potential concerns:

          1. Mandatory AI Integration

  • Require the use of AI systems to analyze real-world patient data, flag risks, and optimize treatment protocols.
  • Example: An AI platform monitors early adopters’ health metrics, identifying trends in adverse effects to refine dosage recommendations.
    ***
    2. Global Collaboration on Efficacy Standards
  • Establish international benchmarks for Phase I trial outcomes to ensure consistency in safety validation.
  • Create a shared global registry of investigational therapies, enabling cross-border access and data sharing.
    ***
    3. Patient Education and Consent
  • Develop standardized digital consent modules that explain the experimental nature of therapies and associated risks.
  • Use visual aids and VR demonstrations to ensure informed decision-making.
    ***
    4. Real-Time Feedback Mechanisms
  • Equip patients with wearable devices to provide continuous health data, informing both providers and ethics boards about treatment outcomes.

Transhumanist Perspective on Circumvention Provisions

The RTT Act’s circumvention of FDA approval timelines exemplifies the transhumanist ethos of leveraging technology and policy to expand human potential. By accelerating access to investigational therapies, the Act empowers individuals to take control of their medical trajectories, bypassing the inertia of traditional regulatory frameworks.

This approach aligns with the transhumanist commitment to morphological freedom and the democratization of innovation. At the same time, the integration of cutting-edge tools such as AI and global registries ensures that the expedited process remains ethical, inclusive, and data-driven, paving the way for societal progress in the realm of health and longevity.

Cost Control and Accessibility in the Montana Right to Try Act

The Cost Control and Accessibility provision of the Montana Right to Try (RTT) Act reflects an important but incomplete step toward reducing the financial barriers to experimental therapies. By allowing manufacturers to offer treatments at cost or free, the provision aligns partially with transhumanist principles of autonomy and health enhancement. However, the absence of mechanisms to ensure universal accessibility leaves the law vulnerable to inequities that undermine its transformative potential.

From a transhumanist perspective, universal access to life-extension technologies and innovative therapies is essential for a society that prioritizes human flourishing. This report evaluates the provision’s alignment with the principles of the U.S. Transhumanist Party (USTP) and the Transhumanist Bill of Rights (TBR), while offering targeted recommendations to address its limitations.

Provisions and Gaps

Current Provisions

The RTT Act permits manufacturers to provide investigational treatments either at cost or free. This flexibility is a critical step in addressing affordability concerns for some patients, particularly those who can self-finance their care.

  • Transparency Challenges: The provision does not require manufacturers to disclose cost structures for treatments, making it difficult to assess whether pricing is fair or exploitative.
  • Access Limitations: The absence of mandates for affordability leaves low-income, uninsured, or underinsured individuals at risk of exclusion. Accessibility is thus subject to the discretion of manufacturers, creating potential inequities.

Alignment with Transhumanist Ideals

This provision supports Section V and Section VIII of the USTP Platform, which advocate for improving human health and providing access to cutting-edge technologies. However, it falls short of fulfilling Article VII of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights (TBR), which demands universal healthcare and equitable access to transformative treatments.

Recommendations

1. Establish a Universal Treatment Fund

A Universal Treatment Fund (UTF), funded through public or private partnerships, would subsidize investigational therapies for patients unable to afford them.

  • Implementation Example: The UTF could pool resources from government allocations, philanthropic donations, and industry contributions. Patients with chronic or life-threatening conditions could apply for subsidies, ensuring that financial status does not preclude access to life-saving treatments.

***
2. Cost Transparency Mandates

Mandating manufacturers to disclose detailed cost breakdowns, including production, research, and administrative expenses, would enhance accountability and affordability.

  • Implementation Example: A public database could display cost data for investigational therapies, allowing policymakers, patients, and advocacy groups to assess whether prices align with ethical and equitable standards.
  • AI Integration: Advanced AI algorithms could analyze this data to recommend fair pricing models based on market conditions, production costs, and patient demographics.

***
3. Sliding-Scale Pricing Models

Requiring manufacturers to adopt sliding-scale pricing based on patient income levels would ensure that therapies remain accessible across socioeconomic strata.

  • Implementation Example: A low-income patient seeking investigational cancer treatment might pay a reduced fee proportionate to their income, while wealthier patients would pay closer to the actual cost.

***
4. Global Crowdsourced Subsidy Mechanisms

Decentralized platforms, such as Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), could crowdsource funding for investigational treatments, democratizing access to medical innovation.

  • Implementation Example: A DAO pools contributions globally, funding experimental therapies for individuals selected through a transparent, community-driven process.

Transhumanist Perspective

Inclusivity and Innovation

Universal accessibility to transformative medical technologies embodies the transhumanist ideal of inclusivity, ensuring that treatments for health extension and quality of life improvement are fundamental rights rather than privileges. While the Montana RTT Act’s current provisions lay groundwork for affordability, additional safeguards are necessary to prevent socioeconomic inequities.

Leveraging Technology

Transhumanism emphasizes the integration of advanced technologies such as AI-driven cost analytics, blockchain for accountability, and digital platforms for subsidy management. These innovations would ensure fairness and transparency while enabling scalability.

Societal Benefits

Adopting measures that guarantee equitable access strengthens societal trust in experimental medicine and reduces disparities in healthcare. As transformative therapies become more accessible, they foster a sense of collective progress, bolstering societal cohesion and advancing transhumanist ideals of technological optimism.

The Montana RTT Act’s provision for cost control and accessibility marks a commendable step toward democratizing medical innovation. However, its reliance on voluntary cost controls and manufacturer discretion limits its potential to address systemic inequities. By incorporating a Universal Treatment Fund, cost transparency mandates, and sliding-scale pricing models, the Act can evolve to fully align with transhumanist principles of inclusivity and accessibility.

These measures would ensure that life-enhancing and life-saving treatments transcend socioeconomic barriers, advancing a future where human health, longevity, and autonomy are universally prioritized. Through this approach, the RTT framework not only supports individual rights but also fosters societal trust and technological progress, echoing the foundational values of transhumanism.

Conclusion

The Montana Right to Try (RTT) Act, as enhanced by Senate Bill 422 (SB 422), represents a transformative legislative initiative that aligns closely with the principles of the U.S. Transhumanist Party (USTP) Platform and the Transhumanist Bill of Rights (TBR), Version 3.0. By removing the terminal illness requirement, expediting access to experimental therapies, emphasizing robust informed consent, and shielding providers and manufacturers from undue liability, the Act advances a progressive framework for patient autonomy, medical inclusivity, and technological innovation.

Consistent with the USTP’s core values, the RTT Act dismantles barriers that previously restricted access to investigational treatments, promoting universal healthcare access (TBR, Article VII) and morphological freedom (TBR, Article X). The provision for circumventing FDA timelines reflects a commitment to accelerating medical innovation and prioritizing individual health autonomy, key tenets of transhumanist ideology. Additionally, by addressing cost control and encouraging ethical safeguards, the Act supports the transhumanist vision of a future where transformative technologies are equitably accessible.

However, while the Act’s provisions mark significant progress, they also expose areas for enhancement. Gaps in affordability, transparency, and accountability underscore the need for innovative solutions. Proposals such as establishing a Universal Treatment Fund, leveraging AI for cost analytics and risk assessment, and employing blockchain technology for ethical compliance represent transhumanist-aligned strategies to ensure that the RTT Act’s benefits are universally realized.

Ultimately, the Montana RTT Act serves as a case study in the practical application of transhumanist principles to policy. It embodies the ethos of extending human health and autonomy through science and technology while identifying avenues for continuous improvement. By incorporating equity-focused measures and cutting-edge technologies, the Act can further evolve into a robust model for progressive, inclusive healthcare, advancing the shared goal of transcending biological limitations and promoting a future defined by longevity, innovation, and human flourishing.

References

  1. Governor of Montana Approves Bill Expanding Patient Access to Experimental Treatments. https://a4li.org.
  2. Now in Effect: Montana Law Significantly Expands Right to Try Act. Tenth Amendment Center. https://tenthamendmentcenter.com.
  3. Bill Text: MT SB422 | 2023 | Regular Session | Enrolled. LegiScan. https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB422/2023.
  4. Transhumanist Bill of Rights – Version 3.0. U.S. Transhumanist Party – Official Website. Adopted December 2018. https://www.transhumanist-party.org/bill-of-rights/.
  5. Step 3: Clinical Research. FDA. https://www.fda.gov.
  6. Gaffney, Adam. (2017). To Heal Humankind: The Right to Health in History (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315158433
  7. Gaffney, Adam. “Adam Gaffney on the Right to Health.” PNHP. https://pnhp.org/news/adam-gaffney-on-the-right-to-health/ (Accessed November 21, 2024).
  8. Leonard, Elizabeth Weeks. 2009. “Right to Experimental Treatment: FDA New Drug Approval, Constitutional Rights, and the Public’s Health.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37(2): 269–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00371.x.
  9. U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform. “Sections V, VIII, LXXXV.” https://www.transhumanist-party.org/platform/.
  10. Brown, Brandon., et al. 2018. Assessment of the Right-to-Try Law: The Pros and the Cons. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. https://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/59/10/1492.
  11. Montana Legislature. Senate Bill 422 (2023 Regular Session). https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB422/2023.

Shamar White is a dedicated Legislative Analyst for the U.S. Transhumanist Party, leveraging a robust background in political science, economics, and grassroots organizing to advance innovative and equitable policy solutions. With dual Bachelor’s Degrees in Economics and Political Science from Montclair State University and ongoing pursuit of a Master of Arts in Political Science from the American Public University Systems, Shamar brings a rigorous academic perspective to legislative and policy analysis.

As President of the Global Humanity Corp, a nonprofit organization committed to fostering collaboration and addressing human rights challenges, Shamar has conducted extensive socio-economic and political research on global issues, ranging from the implications of BRICS economic policies to human rights violations in conflict zones. This leadership experience underscores a deep commitment to advocacy and systemic change.

Shamar’s professional experience in educational and community leadership has honed their ability to engage diverse populations, develop strategic initiatives, and advocate for underrepresented groups. Proficient in economic forecasting, policy evaluation, and advanced data analysis, Shamar’s skill set bridges theoretical research and practical implementation.

In their role with the U.S. Transhumanist Party, Shamar applies this expertise to promote policies aligned with the transhumanist ethos, including autonomy, technological innovation, and universal accessibility to transformative medical advancements. Fluent in Japanese and Jamaican Patois, Shamar’s multicultural competencies further enhance their ability to address complex, global issues with nuanced and inclusive solutions.

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

Comments 0 Comment

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 the Director of Publication for the U.S. Transhumanist Party. He is a Certified Supply Chain Professional and small-business co-owner who produced respirator-style masks to help stem the tide of COVID-19’s spread. 

Statement on the Tragic Death of Danielle Baker and the Imperative for Improved Protections for Cryonics Patients

Statement on the Tragic Death of Danielle Baker and the Imperative for Improved Protections for Cryonics Patients

Comments 9 comments

March 19, 2019: The United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party (USTP) issues this statement in response to the unfortunate demise and cremation of Danielle Michelle Baker, which contravened her specific and documented wishes to be cryopreserved. We ask the members of the USTP to deliberate about specific measures that could be taken to prevent such violations of cryonics patients’ wishes and legitimate rights from arising again. These measures could include reforms to laws so as to improve protections for cryonics patients, as well as improved enforcement of existing laws which may offer some extent of protections at least in theory.

Danielle Michelle Baker, a 31-year-old cryonics advocate, disappeared on December 1, 2018, and was found dead on December 4, 2018, in Laurel County, Kentucky. Despite her expressly documented wishes and a legal contract into which she entered to be cryopreserved by Oregon Cryonics, she was cremated by Laurel County Coroner Doug Bowling at the behest of her family members.

Zoltan Istvan, the founder and former Chairman (2014-2016) of the USTP, now an independent commentator, transhumanist advocate, and USTP Political and Media Advisor, initially brought attention to Danielle Baker’s unfortunate cremation in an article published by Quartz on February 22, 2019, entitled “We need better laws to protect the rights of future frozen cryonicists”. Istvan then encouraged the USTP to provide more in-depth coverage to this issue than was possible through mainstream media outlets.

Zoltan Istvan expressed his views on cryonics to the USTP: “No longer just science fiction, cryonics represents the best scientific chance life extension advocates like Baker have to avoid permanent death. For those without faith in an afterlife, preserving the neurons, cerebral structure, and memories in their brains are the highest priority in both life and death. But the practice of cryonicists signing a Document of Gift doesn’t always work, as in the case of Baker, whose body was controversially cremated just three days” after her body was discovered.

Eric Homeyer, a USTP member and volunteer supporter of cryonics who assisted Oregon Cryonics in this matter but who is not affiliated with Oregon Cryonics in any official capacity, communicated to the USTP the story of Danielle Baker’s tragic and unfortunate situation from his point of view.

Homeyer relayed the following information: “It is rumored that [Baker] went missing from home since Saturday, December 1, 2018. She was reported missing on Monday, December 3, 2018. Her father found her deceased in the woods behind the residence on Tuesday, December 4, 2018, at approximately 3 p.m. I found out about her disappearance/death from a mutual friend when I was at home in Cincinnati at 9:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 4, 2018. At that time I found out an Autopsy was scheduled in Frankfort, Kentucky, for the next morning, Wednesday, December 5, 2018. He asked me to go try to represent her interests since I was the closest cryonicist any of us knows to her physical location.”

Homeyer continued, describing his trip on Baker’s behalf: “I left Cincinnati at 2:15 a.m. on December 5, 2018 and drove to Frankfort. I got down to Frankfort at around 5 a.m., found the State Medical Examiner’s office, figuring that is where they do the autopsies, and went to the door to see their hours. The door was unlocked, so I went in and tried to find out if [Baker] was there. After a brief chat with the front-desk cop, I realized I was in the right place. I told him I was there on behalf of Danielle Baker to help facilitate her final wishes as an Anatomical Gift Act tissue donor and that I was primarily concerned with making sure brain tissue wasn’t damaged. He said they get started at 8 a.m. and to come back then. Then I went and sat in my car at a gas station five minutes away to wait for a little over two and a half hours. Just before 8 a.m., I returned to the Medical Examiner’s office, and spoke again, to a different cop at the desk. I had the security officer convey by phone to the Medical Examiner’s office that I was there as a volunteer representative of Oregon Cryonics on behalf of Danielle Michelle Baker, an anatomical tissue donor and that my boss Dr. Jordan Sparks would be calling in about an hour to make requests for the handling of the brain during and after the autopsy and the logistics of the release afterwards. I again stressed that of critical importance was that the brain tissue not be damaged.  At that time there weren’t any medical examiners in the office. They took down my number, and told me to check back in a couple of hours if I hadn’t heard from them. I got their fax number and forwarded it and all of the information I had found to [Dr. Sparks]. I then got a hotel nearby and stayed on standby. At 9:26 a.m. [Dr. Sparks] contacted me, told me he was in communication with the Medical Examiner’s office, and said that I didn’t need to go back. I left Frankfort at 5:36pm on December 5, 2018, heading back to Cincinnati, believing I had helped my friend.”

However, despite the efforts of Homeyer and the subsequent efforts of Dr. Jordan Sparks of Oregon Cryonics to advocate for the cryopreservation, Danielle Baker was cremated. Istvan, in his Quartz article of February 22, 2019, wrote that “despite the major parties knowing about the cryonics contract and Document of Gift, Baker’s family pushed for the cremation, which then was carried out by the coroner via a funeral home three days later.”

Homeyer notes that the cremation “was done at the crematory which happens to be co-owned by the coroner who was in charge of her case and in custody of her remains.”

Cryonics advocate Matthew Bryce Deutsch wrote, “Doug Bowling is the coroner, and Baker was cremated at Bowling Funeral home.” Bowling is the Laurel County Coroner in Kentucky, and was re-elected as a Republican for the job in 2018. He is listed as the President of Bowling Funeral home on its website.

Homeyer expressed his view in disapproval of Bowling’s decision to cremate Baker: “Not sure if that’s too much poking the bear… But if he ultimately stands to gain from ignoring her wishes, as an elected official who is supposed to uphold the law, that’s kind of messed up.”

Dr. Jordan Sparks, D.M.D., of Oregon Cryonics explained that “Usually, families don’t object to non-transplant donation, so there is no conflict. In this case, there was disagreement. Funeral directors and coroners are not supposed to be mediators in disputes. It was also an unexpected death, so emotions were very high. I was over 2000 miles away, so I could not be a strong advocate. Things might have been different if we were in the same town. Maybe. At least something like an injunction might have been an option.”

Homeyer expressed his view that he “arrived at the medical examiner’s office on the morning of her scheduled autopsy, in time to prevent damage, but despite this the cremation was carried out.” However, there is disagreement about whether Danielle Baker’s brain was in a sufficiently intact state to enable her memories, personality, and identity to be maintained in some form in the course of the cryopreservation process.

Sparks informed the USTP that “A body that lies undiscovered for three days will never be in good condition.  I think the mind was hopelessly lost by that time. I want to be clear that an [Oregon Cryonics] technician was not able to appear on site.  A volunteer friend showed up and tried to help, but that is very different.  My opinion is that a meaningful preservation can only be performed immediately or within maybe an hour.  At about 6 hours, all the cells are necrotic.  At about 12-24 hours, it becomes impossible to perfuse in all cases, and tissue breakdown is well underway. Because of the already hopeless condition of Danielle’s brain, I don’t believe that Doug Bowling’s actions harmed her.” However, Dr. Sparks also clarified his view that Bowling’s actions were nonetheless “illegal and unethical”. The USTP cannot claim expertise in Kentucky law and so cannot express an opinion on the current legality of Bowling’s behavior, but the USTP holds that legal protections should be established to clearly, unambiguously protect the wishes of cryonics patients, notwithstanding the objections of any other party. The USTP also concurs with Dr. Sparks that cremating an individual against that individual’s express, known wishes is indeed unethical.

Homeyer stated his perspective that “Although I never laid eyes on the body, so I cannot with certainty claim knowledge of her state of decay, as far as I know, Mr. Bowling is not an expert in information-theoretic demise, and nobody currently alive is an expert in the capabilities of future revival technology, therefore his opinion of how well she could have been preserved, seems irrelevant with respect to his ability to carry out what he knew were her final wishes.”

In subsequent communications with the USTP, Istvan commented that “Dr. Sparks here is speaking on matters of the mind. This is not his expertise. And frankly, that’s not for any of us to understand in 2019. We know the research today. But they thought they knew the research in the 1920s with blood tests for murders. What they didn’t know was DNA would overturn the entire field and exonerate many people a century later (as well as ruin many lives unfairly in prison). The point here is we simply cannot know these things, but we do know is Baker had a legit signed contract. And her rights were not followed. And [we know] that a preserved slightly decayed corpse is better than ashes for a person who wanted to come back alive. You have to put yourself in this position and ask what you’d want to be done. I think it’s safe to say: all of us would want the chance to be preserved, whether or not the cryonics process was in optimal conditions.”

The USTP Platform is clear on where we stand in regard to the decision that should have been made in Danielle Baker’s situation. Article III, Section VI, of the USTP Platform, focusing on morphological freedom, reads, in part, that “The United States Transhumanist Party considers morphological freedom to include the prerogative for a sentient intelligence to set forth in advance provisions for how to handle its physical manifestation, should that intelligence enter into a vegetative, unconscious, or similarly inactive state, notwithstanding any legal definition of death. For instance, a cryonics patient should be entitled to determine in advance that the patient’s body shall be cryopreserved and kept under specified conditions, in spite of any legal definition of death that might apply to that patient under cryopreservation.” The concluding paragraph of Section VI also recognizes cryonics as a choice which should “be the purview of […] individual [sapient] beings, and holds that no other group, individual, or government has the right to limit those choices”. The right to morphological freedom is reiterated in Article X of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights, Version 3.0, with essentially the same language as contained in Article III, Section VI, of the USTP Platform. This principle is a matter on which every cryonics supporter – including Istvan, Sparks, Homeyer, and Deutsch – would also express a fundamental agreement.

As noted above, the USTP takes no position on whether or not Doug Bowling’s actions were in violation of current law; however, we invite our members to consider how applicable laws could be interpreted or improved in order to render the protection of cryonics patients’ wishes unambiguous and incapable of being lawfully abrogated by a third party. The USTP also invites ideas on how to foster improved social acceptance of cryonics so as to at least facilitate its toleration by non-adopters to the same degree that various funeral practices – such as burial, embalming, or cremation – are tolerated today. Members may and will differ in their opinions as to whether Danielle Baker as a person could have been saved even through cryopreservation, and further consideration of this question may be valuable as a theoretical discussion of what cryonics can and what it cannot achieve. Ultimately, though, we have an opportunity to craft a proposal for a “Danielle’s Law” that would protect those cryonicists who do stand a chance to ultimately be revived if their wishes are honored in a sufficiently prompt fashion after legal death.

We encourage you to post your thoughts in the comment thread accompanying this statement.

Nevada Transhumanist Party Positions on 2018 Nevada Ballot Questions

Nevada Transhumanist Party Positions on 2018 Nevada Ballot Questions

Comments 0 Comment
Gennady Stolyarov II

The Nevada Transhumanist Party offers the following brief statements of position on the ballot questions currently before Nevada voters in the 2018 General Election.

Summary
Question 1: Support
Question 2: Support
Question 3: Support
Question 4: Support
Question 5: Oppose
Question 6: Oppose

 

Ballot Question 1 – Marsy’s Law Crime Victims’ Rights Amendment – Support

Wording of Ballot Question: “Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to: (1) remove existing provisions that require the Legislature to provide certain statutory rights for crime victims; and (2) adopt in their place certain expressly stated constitutional rights that crime victims may assert throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process?” (More information on BallotPedia.)

Position of the Nevada Transhumanist Party: The Nevada Transhumanist Party supports Ballot Question 1 as an expansion of the rights of crime victims to render those rights more symmetrical to the protections that those accused of criminal acts already receive. The Nevada Transhumanist Party strongly holds that due process is vital for both the accused and the victim of a crime. Section X of the Nevada Transhumanist Party Platform states, in part, that “each individual should be sentenced based solely on the consideration of the nature of that individual’s crime, its context, and its severity.” However, the nature, context, and severity of a crime can only be ascertained if victims are permitted to participate in the justice process, with full protections of their safety and right to be heard. One of the most important protections of Ballot Question 1 is “To have all monetary payments, money and property collected from any person who has been ordered to make restitution be first applied to pay the amounts ordered as restitution to the victim.” This shifts the focus of the justice system toward compensating the victim, instead of simply enriching the state. A restitution-oriented justice system is ideal where the damage from a crime can be repaired or compensated monetarily, as this approach actually endeavors to make the victims whole and thereby undo as many of the ill effects of the crime as possible. The more lives can be repaired in this way, the fewer obstacles to innocent individuals’ flourishing will exist, and the faster our society will progress in economic, moral, and technological dimensions.

 

Ballot Question 2 – Sales-Tax Exemption for Feminine Hygiene Products – Support

Wording of Ballot Question: “Shall the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 be amended to provide an exemption from the taxes imposed by this Act on the gross receipts from the sale and the storage, use or other consumption of feminine hygiene products?” (More information on BallotPedia.)

Position of the Nevada Transhumanist Party: The Nevada Transhumanist Party supports Ballot Question 2 as a protection for the morphological freedom of individuals. The morphological freedom of female individuals is infringed by asymmetrical taxation of products that those individuals uniquely require. While the Nevada Transhumanist Party does not oppose sales taxes per se, exemptions from sales taxes for the necessities of life are reasonable if such taxes pose impediments to individual quality of life or even the ability to afford those necessities.

 

Ballot Question 3 – Energy Choice Initiative – Support

Wording of Ballot Question: “Shall Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to require the Legislature to provide by law for the establishment of an open, competitive retail electric energy market that prohibits the granting of monopolies and exclusive franchises for the generation of electricity?” (More information on BallotPedia.)

Position of the Nevada Transhumanist Party: The Nevada Transhumanist Party supports Ballot Question 3 to eliminate the coercive energy monopoly currently held by NV Energy and allow individuals to choose their utility and source of energy, much like they are able to choose which furniture or which cars to buy today. NV Energy has used its monopoly position to stifle and penalize the deployment of economical rooftop solar systems, which allow homeowners to autonomously generate their own electricity and even earn some money doing so. The suppression of such opportunities is a travesty of justice and needs to be reversed.

The NV Energy monopoly is not only harmful to technological progress, renewal energy, and affordable electricity costs; it is also a danger to the health and safety of homeowners. This is because of NV Energy’s arcane, deliberately circular call-center system, which gives consumers “the runaround” when consumers attempt to contact NV Energy to request emergency service related to failures in the electrical panels on their homes. NV Energy has connected the main circuit-breakers on many such panels to its “smart meters”, which require the intervention of an NV Energy technician to disable to that the circuit-breakers can be worked on and repaired or replaced. However, NV Energy does not offer consumers a dedicated emergency response to promptly allow access to those consumers’ own electrical systems in situations where hours and even minutes matter for preserving life and property.

The Nevada Transhumanist Party considers particularly reprehensible the “No on 3” campaign in Nevada – orchestrated and almost exclusively (99.99%) financed by NV Energy and its connected organizations – which has been disingenuous in its messaging and which has created many mistaken impressions on the part of the public. Question 3 would only deprive NV Energy of its monopoly powers; it would not mirror the California-style (pseudo)-“deregulation” of the late 1990s, nor would it thwart any renewable-energy projects. Quite the contrary, it has been NV Energy and only NV Energy that has stifled efforts by consumers and rooftop-solar installers to create genuine alternatives to NV Energy’s electrical grid and its intentionally cumbersome and restrictive policies.

Question 3, indeed, would require that the Nevada Legislature “ensure that protections are established that entitle customers to safe, reliable, and competitively priced electricity;” and “protect against service disconnections and unfair practices” – protections that are currently absent because of the NV Energy monopoly’s political connections, asymmetrical lobbying clout, and the regulatory capture of the Public Utilities Commission.

Nevada’s voters overwhelmingly approved Question 3 in 2016 (72.36% voted in favor). Now that NV Energy has launched a last-ditch campaign in reaction to the jeopardy in which its monopoly finds itself, voters should inform themselves and see through the misleading rhetoric of the “Coalition to Defeat Question 3” (i.e., NV Energy). The Nevada Transhumanist Party staunchly supports Question 3 as the pathway toward major technological progress and innovation in the realm of energy, harnessing the forces of market competition to provide cleaner, more affordable electricity for all Nevadans.

 

Ballot Question 4 – Medical Equipment Sales Tax Exemption Amendment – Support

Wording of Ballot Question: “Shall Article 10 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to require the Legislature to provide by law for the exemption of durable medical equipment, oxygen delivery equipment, and mobility enhancing equipment prescribed for use by a licensed health care provider from any tax upon the sale, storage, use, or consumption of tangible personal property?” (More information on BallotPedia.)

Position of the Nevada Transhumanist Party: The Nevada Transhumanist Party supports Ballot Question 4 to exempt durable medical equipment from sales and use tax. These taxes can often run into the thousands of dollars for sick and dying patients and could compromise the quality of their care. We support any measure that helps make medical equipment affordable and more widespread.

 

Ballot Question 5 – Automatic Voter Registration via DMV – Oppose

Wording of Ballot Question: “Shall Chapter 293 of the Nevada Revised Statutes be amended to establish a system that will automatically register an eligible person to vote, or update that person’s existing Nevada voter registration information, at the time the person applies to the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles for the issuance or renewal of any type of driver’s license or identification card, or makes a request to change the address on such a license or identification card, unless the person affirmatively declines in writing?” (More information on BallotPedia.)

Position of the Nevada Transhumanist Party: The Nevada Transhumanist Party opposes Ballot Question 5. While the Nevada Transhumanist Party supports efforts to render voter registration easy and seamless, the particular requirements of Ballot Question 5 would entail the DMV being mandated to insert disclosures that encourage voters to select a major political-party registration by including a statement “that the person will not be able to vote at a primary election for candidates for partisan offices of a major political party unless the person indicates a major political party affiliation”. Such wording – which would essentially compel a State agency to advertise for the major political parties – would further skew the political arena toward the major political parties and would entrench their dominance. Voter registration should furthermore always occur on an opt-in, rather than opt-out, basis; this is the only approach that consistently respects individual autonomy and choice to participate in the political system or to abstain from such participation. Opting in should be easy and made available through a variety of methods (including electronic, same-day registration), but the presumption of registration can create logistical difficulties for some individuals and conceivable situations where an automatic “updated” registration generates needless contradictions in a person’s registration status, which would actually render it more difficult for that person to subsequently cast a vote.

 

Ballot Question 6 – Renewable Energy Standards Initiative – Oppose

Wording of Ballot Question: “Shall Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to require, beginning in calendar year 2022, that all providers of electric utility services who sell electricity to retail customers for consumption in Nevada generate or acquire incrementally larger percentages of electricity from renewable energy resources so that by calendar year 2030 not less than 50 percent of the total amount of electricity sold by each provider to its retail customers in Nevada comes from renewable energy resources?“ (More information on BallotPedia.)

Position of the Nevada Transhumanist Party: The Nevada Transhumanist Party opposes Ballot Question 6. While the Nevada Transhumanist Party supports economical renewable energy and the acceleration of efforts to develop technologies to render as much of our energy supply renewable as possible, the ability to affordably generate 50 percent of the total electricity through renewable energy resources is ultimately a technological challenge, not a political one. If the technology is ready, and the market is robust and competitive enough to deploy it to consumers at more attractive prices than fossil-fuel energy, then a 50-percent or greater renewable proportion of electricity will be achieved by 2030 without the need for a mandate. If, however, the technology cannot yet render renewable energy competitive with fossil fuels, then the only effect of the mandate would be to push up costs and constrict supply of electricity to consumers. The surest way to bring about a future of greater renewable energy is to repeal the NV Energy monopoly which has been standing in its way. Through competition, both technological and marketing innovations will thrive and will deliver renewable energy solutions to consumers.  Ballot Question 3, rather than Ballot Question 6, is therefore a superior means toward that goal.

 

Mr. Stolyarov is the Chief Executive of the Nevada Transhumanist Party and Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party.
 ***
Become a member of the U.S. Transhumanist Party for free, no matter where you reside. Fill out our free Membership Application Form here. It takes less than a minute!
 ***
This post may be freely reproduced using the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike International 4.0 License, which requires that credit be given to the author, Gennady Stolyarov II (G. Stolyarov II). Find out about Mr. Stolyarov here.
Head in the Clouds – Article by R. Nicholas Starr

Head in the Clouds – Article by R. Nicholas Starr

Comments 0 Comment

logo_bg

R. Nicholas Starr

Editor’s Note: The U.S. Transhumanist Party has published this perspective from R. Nicholas Starr as part of the ongoing discussion about the interaction of transhumanism with other ideological frameworks, such as libertarianism and socialism. Prior perspectives in this discussion include Zoltan Istvan’s article, “Transhumanism is Under Siege from Socialism“, and B.J. Murphy’s response, “Why the Transhumanist Movement Needs Socialism“. The U.S. Transhumanist Party remains committed to the principle of transpartisanship, which means we will neither embrace any conventional political ideology, nor distance ourselves from people who hold such ideologies but wish to constructively contribute to our endeavors. Nonetheless, our inextricable embeddedness in the world of contemporary political discourse does render unavoidable the discussion of these ideologies and any logical relationships and tensions. It is hoped that such discussions can proceed in a constructive manner whereby various perspectives can be expressed and perhaps result in some creative, unconventional solutions that would further expand our movement, rather than fracturing it, and establish grounds for fruitful collaboration on endeavors that advance the next great era of our civilization. 

Do you agree or disagree with Mr. Starr’s article? Post your thoughts in the Comments section below. 

~ Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party, July 29, 2018

TL;DR – If transhumanism is to grow and gain momentum, we need to distance ourselves from libertarian elitism, and Altered Carbon shows us why.

In Zoltan Istvan’s most recent article (1) he presents, in my opinion, a misguided argument on how the transhumanist movement is breaking from its libertarian roots and morphing into a hard-left socialist agenda. When did this partisan prerequisite appear, and how has the party changed?

Zoltan Istvan’s sensational 2016 Presidential campaign brought a lot of attention to transhumanism. If it weren’t for his dramatic tour across America in a coffin bus, preaching about immortality, morphological freedom, and other transhumanist virtues, we would have never attracted the large diversity of members to the party we have today. With the vision of using science and technology to improve the human condition, we have come together to lift humanity up, not to pull it to the left or right. To bring this vision to life, we need our leadership to embrace and act on the input of all members, not just the libertarian progenitors. This is something that current transhumanist party chairman Gennady Stolyarov II, the person Istvan himself selected to lead the party as he made his departure, has done a great job with. 

Since Stolyarov took the reins, he has created an environment where every member can voice an opinion and suggest policy planks. These planks are then voted on by the entire party, giving the members direct control over its course and message. If the party going in a different direction than before, it is because the members have made the informed decision to do so, and its leadership is acting on their votes. Suggesting that transhumanists reject member input because of a perceived socialist invasion is a slap in the face of the democratic process and deters prospective members. It’s also contrary to a science-based organization.

Perception is veiled in opinion and personal bias, and humans too easily fall into its many traps. But an organization building its platform on evidence-based policy needs to stick to hard data. The available information simply doesn’t support the notion that the goals of transhumanists are changing. An analysis of the party’s Constitution (2), which contains all voting data embedded within it, provides the only measurable data available, at least as far as the American organization is concerned. Simply reading opinion pieces from the handful of us with an outlet to do so isn’t enough to suggest a radical change is on the horizon. However what could be changing are the methods of achieving these goals. This can likely be attributed to the current sociopolitical climate. As a political organization working to improve lives, we need to tailor our message to show how a future-focused message can also address their needs for today. Failing to do so leads many to view transhumanism as out of touch.

We should also consider the impact of the radical life-extension platform, the preeminent transhuman subject, and how it impacts the narrative. To be blunt, transhumanists need to tone down the rhetoric on life extension. When a large portion of Americans can’t even afford basic healthcare or life-saving prescriptions, it is incredibly callous to suggest they should be investing in radical life extension. Modern medicine has already taken huge strides in extending human life anyways, and it will continue to do so. Anyone who ignores these two facts to proselytize immortality is begging to be made a fool. To then double down and suggest that billionaires will buy into the immortality market and save us all is callow and turns a blind eye to history. No wonder many fear that only the elite will achieve immortality. We’ve never shown them how it could be accessible to them. What they have seen are countless selfish acts by sci/tech industry leaders that tear down the average citizen while building up their bank accounts. 

Zuckerberg, Bezos, Shkreli, and Trump are all current documentable examples of how the ultra-rich have publicly exploited Americans for personal and professional gain. Consumers have every right to be skeptical of corporate motives when they have been given overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing by many in those positions. And while we certainly can’t paint every tycoon with the same brush, we also can’t blindly put our trust in them. It would be foolhardy to let a handful of CEOs determine the course of future civilization without deep analysis of every product and policy they create. The libertarian opinion that “the market” will some how regulate these corporations or “generous donations” will provide all the public needs is a fantasy, especially when it comes to bleeding-edge science, medicine, and technology. Pride, greed, and ego are too easy a pit to fall into when exploring uncharted territory. To combat this there must be unrelenting third-party accountability, lest we have a world led by Bancrofts with their Heads in the Clouds. 

Richard Morgan’s novel Altered Carbon provides a perfect allegory for this situation. The entire Bancroft family are precise examples of how many see transhumanism becoming. The novel depicts a world where the ultra-rich can live forever and act without impunity simply because they can afford to do so. Even more to the point, it shows us how the wealthy use philanthropy as a means to pad their own egos. Laurens Bancroft’s humanitarian efforts to assist the plague colony are nothing short of self-aggrandizing. Distributing blankets and candy are nice things to do for victims, but they do nothing to solve the actual problem of their illness. He’s so rich that he can even afford to repeatedly resleeve himself after making himself a martyr to their plight. Nevertheless he is worshipped as a god for doing this. He could surely afford to do so much more to end their suffering by bringing them out of the shadows to get 24-hour medical care until they find a cure, or even resleeve them entirely, but he has decided a minute’s smile on their faces is enough because it’s more than anyone else is doing. This is precisely how Americans today feel about tech moguls like Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos. They have made billions turning human beings into nothing more than data and dollars signs. But all is assumed forgiven when Zuckerberg announces he is funding a “biohub” in San Francisco, a city where a staggering yearly income of $105,000 is considered low-income and his own employees are asking for help with rent (3), to develop lifesaving tools. It doesn’t take much effort to determine that this is just another money-making venture, as these are all investments he expects a return on and not outright grants. And if the biohub is successful, who will be able to afford to us the products? Amazon’s Bezos has done even less, placating followers on Twitter (4), only to turn around and bully the city of Seattle out of helping the homeless by the tune of 0.042% of Amazon’s yearly income (5,6). So when a libertarian says, “Don’t worry, the rich won’t let you down,” or “The market will correct this,” it immediately triggers justifiable skepticism and fear among the millions struggling to make ends meet. We shouldn’t hang the lives of millions on a hook of hopes and dreams. That isn’t how government, business, or real life work. A tangible and socially responsible plan is required. But while I think the fiscal libertarian position is folly, we do gain some positive aspects from libertarianism.

Social libertarianism is what I see transhumanism is truly built around. An inherent right to bodily autonomy and self-determination are the pillars that hold the rest of the transhumanist platform up. These also happen to be major components of liberal and 21st-century socialist politics. For example, reproductive rights and morphological freedom are born from the same philosophy. Free and accessible medical care enables life extension for all. Free and continued education is what allows the population to think critically and make informed decisions. We can’t create science-based policy if only a handful understand the science involved! So when self-appointed spokesmen claim that transhumanism isn’t compatible with left-wing goals because of an partisan line they drew in the sand, I have to seriously question their motives and good judgement. It’s divisive and counterproductive to positive change that any sociopolitical movement wishes to achieve. If we truly want to avoid the assorted dystopias science fiction has presented to us, then we must all heed the warnings and take actionable steps to mitigate the risk. If that falls into what some would call a socialist agenda, then fine. But for the record, I don’t see this as socialism; I see it as being an empathetic human being who wants to use science to help everyone. And that’s not a bad thing.

1- Istvan, Zoltan. “Transhumanism is Under Siege from Socialism“. July 18, 2018. Available at https://www.themaven.net/transhumanistwager/transhumanism/transhumanism-is-under-siege-from-socialism-UzA2xHZiFUaGOiUFpc0n5g/ 

2- U.S. Transhumanist Party Constitution. Available at https://transhumanist-party.org/constitution/ 

3- Bloom, Ester.”Here’s how much you have to make to be considered ‘low income’ in San Francisco“. May 12, 2017. Available at https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/12/if-you-make-105000-in-san-francisco-youre-considered-low-income.html

4- Bezos, Jeff. “Request for ideas…” June 15, 2017. Available at https://twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/875418348598603776?s=21

5- Barrabi, Thomas. “What Seattle ‘head tax’ will cost Amazon”. May 15, 2017. Available at https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/what-seattle-head-tax-will-cost-amazon

6- Alcula. Percentage Calculator. http://www.alcula.com/calculators/finance/percentage-calculator/

Results of Platform Vote #2 and Adopted Sections

Results of Platform Vote #2 and Adopted Sections

Comments 0 Comment

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II

The U.S. Transhumanist Party conducted its third vote of the members and the second vote on its platform planks on February 16 through February 22, 2017. Official ballot options can be found here.

Detailed results of the voting have been tabulated here. Options were selected based on the ranked-preference method with instant runoffs.

As a result, the following sections of Article III of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Constitution were adopted.

Section VI: 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.

The United States Transhumanist Party considers morphological freedom to include the prerogative for a sentient intelligence to set forth in advance provisions for how to handle its physical manifestation, should that intelligence enter into a vegetative, unconscious, or similarly inactive state, notwithstanding any legal definition of death. For instance, a cryonics patient should be entitled to determine in advance that the patient’s body shall be cryopreserved and kept under specified conditions, in spite of any legal definition of death that might apply to that patient under cryopreservation.

The United States Transhumanist Party also recognizes that morphological freedom entails the duty to treat all sapients as individuals instead of categorizing them into arbitrary subgroups or demographics, including as yet undefined subcategorizations that may arise as sapience evolves.

The United States Transhumanist Party is focused on the rights of all sapient individuals to do as they see fit with themselves and their own reproductive choices.

However, the United States Transhumanist Party holds that the proper exercise of morphological freedom must also ensure that any improvement of the self should not result in involuntary harms directly inflicted upon others. Furthermore, the United States Transhumanist Party recognizes any sentient entity to have the freedom not to modify itself without being subject to negative political repercussions, which include but are not limited to legal and/or socio-economic repercussions.

The United States Transhumanist Party recognizes the ethical obligations of sapient beings to be the purview of those individual beings, and holds that no other group, individual, or government has the right to limit those choices – including genetic manipulation or other biological manipulation or any other modifications up to and including biological manipulation, mechanical manipulation, life extension, reproductive choice, reproductive manipulation, cryonics, or other possible modifications, enhancements, or morphological freedoms. It is only when such choices directly infringe upon the rights of other sapient beings that the United States Transhumanist Party will work to develop policies to avoid potential infringements.

Section VII:  The United States Transhumanist Party strongly supports and emphasizes all values and organized efforts related to the cultivation of science, reason, intelligence, and rational thinking.

The United States Transhumanist Party places no reliance upon any and all sources of information that cannot stand up to rational scrutiny.

The United States Transhumanist Party places no reliance upon any individual, organization, or belief system that intentionally distorts empirically verifiable evidence, including but not limited to scientific and historical evidence, to serve its own agenda.

The United States Transhumanist Party places no reliance upon any position or belief system that contains arguments built upon logical fallacies (with exemption granted to arguments containing both fallacious and logically defensible premises).

Section VIII: The United States Transhumanist Party supports maximum individual liberty to engage in scientific and technological innovation for the improvement of the self and the human species. In particular, the United States Transhumanist Party supports all rationally, scientifically grounded research efforts for curing diseases, lengthening lifespans, achieving functional, healthy augmentations of the body and brain, and increasing the durability and youthfulness of the human organism. The United States Transhumanist Party holds that all such research efforts should be rendered fully lawful and their products should be made fully available to the public, as long as no individual is physically harmed without that individual’s consent or defrauded by misrepresentation of the effects of a possible treatment or substance.

Section IX: The United States Transhumanist Party supports all emerging technologies that have the potential to improve the human condition – including but not limited to autonomous vehicles, electric vehicles, economical solar power, safe nuclear power, hydroelectricity, geothermal power, applications for the sharing of durable goods, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, nanotechnology, robotics, rapid transit, 3D printing, vertical farming, electronic devices to detect and respond to trauma, and beneficial genetic modification of plants, animals, and human beings.

Section X: The United States Transhumanist Party advocates the construction of a self-repairing, self-maintaining smart infrastructure which incorporates the distribution of energy, communications, and clean potable water to every building.

Official Ballot Options for Platform Vote #2

Official Ballot Options for Platform Vote #2

Comments 3 comments

logo_bg

 

The 7-day electronic voting period on the second set of five proposed platform planks of the U.S. Transhumanist Party will occur from 12:01 a.m. U.S. Pacific Time on February 16, 2017, to 12:01 a.m.  U.S. Pacific Time on February 23, 2017. All members of the U.S. Transhumanist Party who have applied before 12:01 a.m. on February 16, 2017, will be eligible to vote, as long as they have expressed agreement with the three Core Ideals of the Transhumanist Party or have otherwise been rendered eligible to vote at the discretion of the Chairman.

All members who are eligible to vote will be sent a link to an electronic submission form whereby they will be able to cast their ballot.

When you are voting, it is strongly recommended that you keep this page of official ballot options and the submission form open simultaneously in different windows so that you can reference the relevant options as you vote on them. Due to space limitations, the submission form does not list the entire text of all the options.

It is also recommended that you set aside at least fifteen minutes to consider and vote on all of the options and read their text closely, as some of the options contain minor variations upon other options. 

For most questions, electronic voting is  conducted by a ranked-preference method on individual articles where more options are possible than would be accommodated by a simple “Yes” or “No” vote. Members should keep in mind that the ranked-preference method eliminates the incentives for strategic voting – so members are encouraged to vote for the options that reflect their individual preferences as closely as possible, without regard for how other members might vote.

Results of the voting will be tabulated during late February 2017, with the intent to announce the results approximately 7 days after all votes have been submitted.

NOTE: The titles of the questions and potential Sections are descriptive and informational only and will not appear in the final adopted platform planks (which will be incorporated into Article III of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Constitution). They are intended as concise guides to the subject matter of the questions and potential Sections. Likewise, the letters assigned to Sections within this ballot will not reflect the numbering of the final adopted provisions, which will depend on which Sections are selected by the membership.

NOTE II: The inclusion of any proposals on this ballot does not indicate any manner of endorsement for those proposals by the U.S. Transhumanist Party at this time – except to place those proposals before the members to determine the will of the members with regard to whether or not the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform should incorporate any given proposal.

 

 

Voter Identification

E-mail address

Provide the same e-mail address you used to register for U.S. Transhumanist Party membership. Your ballot will be cross-referenced to our membership rolls, and only ballots with matching e-mail addresses will be counted.

What is your name?

At minimum, first and last name are required, unless you are publicly known by a single-name pseudonym which is not itself a common name. Your identity will not be publicly disclosed by the Transhumanist Party, unless you choose and/or authorize its disclosure. Only other members of the Transhumanist Party will be able to see *that* you voted, but not *how* you voted. The nature of the selections made by the members may be disclosed, but, if they are, each individual vote will not be associated with the identity of the voter but rather will be presented in an anonymized manner.

Navigate the Options

Question I. Section E2-A. Morphological Freedom
Question II. Additional Text of Section E2-A. Reproductive Choice
Question III. Additional Text of Section E2-A. Ethical Obligations as Individual, Not Collective Purview
Question IV. Preceding Mention of Not Harming Others by the Word “Directly”
Question V. Section E2-B. Pro-Intelligence / Pro-Science Position
Question VI. Additional Text of Section E2-B. Unfavorable Treatment of Sources That Cannot Stand Up to Scrutiny
Question VII. Additional Text of Section E2-B. Nature of Scrutiny to Be Used to Justify Reliance
Question VIII. Additional Text of Section E2-B. Unfavorable Treatment of Entities That Intentionally Distort Evidence
Question IX. Additional Text of Section E2-B. Manner of Verifiability of Evidence
Question X. Additional Text of Section E2-B. Unfavorable View of Logical Fallacies
Question XI. Section E2-C. Liberty to Innovate
Question XII. Section E2-D. Support for Emerging Technologies
Question XIII. Section E2-E. Smart Infrastructure

Proposed Platform Sections

Question I. Section E2-A. Morphological Freedom. 

Rank-order the Section E2-A Options that you support. Choose “1” for your most highly favored option, “2” for your second-most highly favored option, etc. You may include the option for “No Section of this sort” in your rank-ordering, and it does not need to be your most favored option if you do so. (For instance, some voters might favor some options but think that no language is preferable to some of the other options.)

If you choose “Abstain”, then do not rank-order any options, as you will be considered to have skipped this question.

☐ Option E2-A-1. [Based on Section VI of the Nevada Transhumanist Party Platform]

The United States Transhumanist Party advocates for morphological freedom – the right of an individual to alter the appearance, composition, and prospects of his, her, or its organism, as long as such changes do not harm others.

☐ Option E2-A-2. [Platform Adaptation of Article X of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights, Version 2.0]

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 harm others.

The United States Transhumanist Party considers morphological freedom to include the prerogative for a sentient intelligence to set forth in advance provisions for how to handle its physical manifestation, should that intelligence enter into a vegetative, unconscious, or similarly inactive state, notwithstanding any legal definition of death. For instance, a cryonics patient should be entitled to determine in advance that the patient’s body shall be cryopreserved and kept under specified conditions, in spite of any legal definition of death that might apply to that patient under cryopreservation.

The United States Transhumanist Party also recognizes that morphological freedom entails the duty to treat all sapients as individuals instead of categorizing them into arbitrary subgroups or demographics, including as yet undefined subcategorizations that may arise as sapience evolves.

However, the United States Transhumanist Party holds that the proper exercise of morphological freedom must also ensure that any improvement of the self should not result in involuntary harms inflicted upon others. Furthermore, the United States Transhumanist Party recognizes any sentient entity to have the freedom not to modify itself without being subject to negative political repercussions, which include but are not limited to legal and/or socio-economic repercussions.

☐ Option E2-A-NO. No Section of this sort.

Question II. Additional Text of Section E2-A. Reproductive Choice.

If Section E2-A on morphological freedom is adopted, shall the following sentence be integrated into the article?

“The United States Transhumanist Party is focused on the rights of all sapient individuals to do as they see fit with themselves and their own reproductive choices.”

Select one of the following options.

☐ Yes.

☐ No.

☐ Abstain.

Question III. Additional Text of Section E2-A. Ethical Obligations as Individual, Not Collective Purview

If Section E2-A on morphological freedom is adopted, shall the following sentence be integrated into the article?

“The United States Transhumanist Party recognizes the ethical obligations of sapient beings to be the purview of those individual beings, and holds that no other group, individual, or government has the right to limit those choices – including genetic manipulation or other biological manipulation or any other modifications up to and including biological manipulation, mechanical manipulation, life extension, reproductive choice, reproductive manipulation, cryonics, or other possible modifications, enhancements, or morphological freedoms. It is only when such choices directly infringe upon the rights of other sapient beings that the United States Transhumanist Party will work to develop policies to avoid potential infringements.”

Select one of the following options.

☐ Yes.

☐ No.

☐ Abstain.

Question IV. Preceding Mention of Not Harming Others by the Word “Directly”

If any option for Section E2-A on morphological freedom is adopted, shall any mention of not harming others be preceded by the word “directly”? For example, if members vote in the affirmative, then in Option E2-A-1, “as long as such changes do not harm others” would be revised to “as long as such changes do not directly harm others”. In Option E2-A-2, “so long as it does not harm others” would be revised to “so long as it does not directly harm others”.

Select one of the following options.

☐ Yes, add the word “directly”.

☐ No, do not add the word “directly”.

☐ Abstain.

Question V. Section E2-B. Pro-Intelligence / Pro-Science Position

Rank-order the Section E2-B Options that you support. Choose “1” for your most highly favored option, “2” for your second-most highly favored option, etc. You may include the option for “No Section of this sort” in your rank-ordering, and it does not need to be your most favored option if you do so. (For instance, some voters might favor some options but think that no language is preferable to some of the other options.)

If you choose “Abstain”, then do not rank-order any options, as you will be considered to have skipped this question.

☐ Option E2-B-1.  [Based on Section II of the Nevada Transhumanist Party Platform]

The United States Transhumanist Party supports the spread of a pro-science culture by emphasizing reason and secular values.

☐ Option E2-B-2. [Based on Proposal by Daniel Yeluashvili, Base Text]

The United States Transhumanist Party strongly supports and emphasizes all values and organized efforts related to the cultivation of science, reason, intelligence, and rational thinking.

☐ Option E2-B-NO. No Section of this sort.

Question VI. Additional Text of Section E2-B. Unfavorable Treatment of Sources That Cannot Stand Up to Scrutiny 

If Section E2-B regarding a pro-intelligence / pro-science position is adopted, shall additional language be included to the following effect?

Clause E2-B-Add-1: The United States Transhumanist Party [Possible Options: condemns, disavows, disregards, disapproves of, frowns upon, places no reliance upon] any and all sources of information that cannot stand up to [Possible Options: academic, rational, factually grounded, objective] scrutiny.

If so, which of the following wording options would you favor for the term to express the U.S. Transhumanist Party’s unfavorable outlook toward the aforementioned sources of information?

Rank-order the options you support. “Yes” favors including the above language, whereas “No” favors omitting it in entirety.

☐ Yes, use “condemns”.

☐ Yes, use “disavows”.

☐ Yes, use “disregards”.

☐ Yes, use “disapproves of”.

☐ Yes, use “frowns upon”.

☐ Yes, use “places no reliance upon”.

☐ No, do not include such a clause at all.

Question VII. Additional Text of Section E2-B. Nature of Scrutiny to Be Used to Justify Reliance

If Section E2-B regarding a pro-intelligence / pro-science position is adopted, shall additional language be included to the following effect?

Clause E2-B-Add-1: The United States Transhumanist Party [Possible Options: condemns, disavows, disregards, disapproves of, frowns upon, places no reliance upon] any and all sources of information that cannot stand up to [Possible Options: academic, rational, factually grounded, objective] scrutiny.

If so, which of the following wording options would you favor for the term to express the kind of scrutiny to which information should be able to stand up?

Rank-order the options you support. “Yes” favors including the above language, whereas “No” favors omitting it in entirety.

☐ Yes, use “academic”.

☐ Yes, use “rational”.

☐ Yes, use “factually grounded”.

☐ Yes, use “objective”.

☐ No, do not include such a clause at all.

Question VIII. Additional Text of Section E2-B. Unfavorable Treatment of Entities That Intentionally Distort Evidence

If Section E2-B regarding a pro-intelligence / pro-science position is adopted, shall additional language be included to the following effect?

Clause E2-B-Add-2: The United States Transhumanist Party [Possible Options: condemns, disavows, disregards, disapproves of, frowns upon, places no reliance upon – Same as choice for Question VI] any [Candidate entities for inclusion in the list: individual, organization, belief system] that intentionally distorts [Possible Options: academically, empirically, factually, objectively] verifiable evidence to serve its own agenda, including but not limited to [Candidate adjectives for inclusion in the list: scientific, historical, political, journalistic] evidence.

If so, which of the following entities do think should be included in the list of entities to be considered unfavorably if they engage in the distortion being described, and what sort of evidence do you think should be included in the list of evidence whose distortion the U.S. Transhumanist Party would oppose?

Select all the options you support. (You can select multiple options for this question.) “Yes” favors including the above language, whereas “No” favors omitting it in entirety.

☐ Yes, include “individual”.

☐ Yes, include “organization”.

☐ Yes, include “belief system”.

☐ Yes, include “scientific” evidence.

☐ Yes, include “historical” evidence.

☐ Yes, include “political” evidence.

☐ Yes, include “journalistic” evidence.

☐ No, do not include such a clause at all.

Question IX. Additional Text of Section E2-B. Manner of Verifiability of Evidence

If Section E2-B regarding a pro-intelligence / pro-science position is adopted, shall additional language be included to the following effect?

Clause E2-B-Add-2: The United States Transhumanist Party [Possible Options: condemns, disavows, disregards, disapproves of, frowns upon, places no reliance upon – Same as choice for Question VI] any [Candidate entities for inclusion in the list: individual, organization, belief system] that intentionally distorts [Possible Options: academically, empirically, factually, objectively] verifiable evidence to serve its own agenda, including but not limited to [Candidate adjectives for inclusion in the list: scientific, historical, political, journalistic] evidence.

If so, which adverb should be applied before “verifiable evidence”?

Rank-order the options you support. “Yes” favors including the above language, whereas “No” favors omitting it in entirety.

☐ Yes, use “academically”.

☐ Yes, use “empirically”.

☐ Yes, use “factually”.

☐ Yes, use “objectively”.

☐ No, do not include such a clause at all.

Question X. Additional Text of Section E2-B. Unfavorable View of Logical Fallacies.

If Section E2-B regarding a pro-intelligence / pro-science position is adopted, shall additional language be included to the following effect?

Clause E2-B-Add-3: The United States Transhumanist Party [Possible Options: condemns, disavows, disregards, disapproves of, frowns upon, places no reliance upon – Same as choice for Question VI] any position or belief system that contains arguments built upon logical fallacies (with exemption granted to arguments containing both fallacious and logically defensible premises).

Select one of the following options.

☐ Yes.

☐ No.

☐ Abstain.

Question XI. Section E2-C. Liberty to Innovate

Shall the following language be adopted as a new Section within the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform?

“The United States Transhumanist Party supports maximum individual liberty to engage in scientific and technological innovation for the improvement of the self and the human species. In particular, the United States Transhumanist Party supports all rationally, scientifically grounded research efforts for curing diseases, lengthening lifespans, achieving functional, healthy augmentations of the body and brain, and increasing the durability and youthfulness of the human organism. The United States Transhumanist Party holds that all such research efforts should be rendered fully lawful and their products should be made fully available to the public, as long as no individual is physically harmed without that individual’s consent or defrauded by misrepresentation of the effects of a possible treatment or substance.”

Select one of the following options.

☐ Yes.

☐ No.

☐ Abstain.

Question XII. Section E2-D. Support for Emerging Technologies

Shall the following language be adopted as a new Section within the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform?

“The United States Transhumanist Party supports all emerging technologies that have the potential to improve the human condition – including but not limited to autonomous vehicles, electric vehicles, economical solar power, safe nuclear power, hydroelectricity, geothermal power, applications for the sharing of durable goods, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, nanotechnology, robotics, rapid transit, 3D printing, vertical farming, electronic devices to detect and respond to trauma, and beneficial genetic modification of plants, animals, and human beings.”

Select one of the following options.

☐ Yes.

☐ No.

☐ Abstain.

Question XIII. Section E2-E. Smart Infrastructure

Shall the following language be adopted as a new Section within the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform?

“The United States Transhumanist Party advocates the construction of a self-repairing, self-maintaining smart infrastructure which incorporates the distribution of energy, communications, and clean potable water to every building.”

Select one of the following options.

☐ Yes.

☐ No.

☐ Abstain.

15-Day Exposure Period for Platform Vote #2 and Practice of Rolling Exposure Periods Going Forward

15-Day Exposure Period for Platform Vote #2 and Practice of Rolling Exposure Periods Going Forward

Comments 2 comments

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II

Informal polling of U.S. Transhumanist Party members has indicated that the majority of respondents prefer ballots to be relatively concise, with five issues addressed per ballot. The U.S. Transhumanist Party will endeavor to respect this preference where it is reasonable to do so.

In order to enable members’ suggestions regarding platform planks to still be considered on a relatively expeditious timeframe, the U.S. Transhumanist Party will henceforth institute the practice of rolling exposure periods, where any potential plank (and the set of options that has been generated in connection with it) may be placed on the ballot if it has been publicly exposed for at least 15 days. This will still allow members at least 15 days to comment on any proposal and suggest alternative variants. Furthermore, some proposals may be exposed for longer than 15 days as a result of this, allowing for more discussion. Once any five potential planks have been exposed for at least 15 days each, the U.S. Transhumanist Party will endeavor to circulate ballots to enable members to vote on them, which will potentially enable multiple votes to be held in closer succession while still keeping each ballot concise.

The United States Transhumanist Party also hereby opens its exposure period for its second vote on platform planks, which will last at least until 12:01 a.m. on February 16, 2017. Comments from members, and at times specific wording suggestions, have motivated the presentation of the five potential planks below. In some instances, multiple options have already been generated based on available sources and suggestions, however additional options may still be proposed for consideration.

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.

After the exposure period, a 7-day electronic voting period will occur. Instructions for electronic voting will be sent to members of the U.S. Transhumanist Party via e-mail at that time. All individuals who are members of the U.S. Transhumanist Party as of the end of the exposure period and who have expressed agreement with its three Core Ideals will be eligible to vote thereafter. You can still vote if you become a member during the exposure period, so please apply here if you are interested. During the 7-day electronic voting period, you will still be able to become a member – but you will only be able to vote in subsequent elections, since we seek for voting on any given issue to be done by those members who have had an opportunity to thoroughly consider that issue and be involved in deliberations regarding it.

Electronic voting will be conducted by a ranked-preference method. Members will be able to rank-order their preferred selections on each individual Platform Section. The original text of each Section will be available for selection, as well as any reasonable amendments proposed by any member. Leadership of the Transhumanist Party reserves the right to edit any proposed amendment for correctness of spelling and grammar only – but not with regard to the substance, unless the person proposing the amendment requests or consents to a substantive edit. “No Section of this sort” will also be a choice, and any Section where a majority of votes favors this option will be not be adopted. Members will also be able to abstain from voting on any given Section.

The ranked-preference method has the advantage of eliminating a “winner-take-all” or “first-past-the-post” mentality and preventing people from being channeled into voting for sub-optimal choices (in their view) just because they fear an even less palatable alternative prevailing. Within the ranked-preference methodology, if no option obtains a clear majority as voters’ first choice, the option having the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated from consideration, and all those who voted for that option will have their votes assigned to their second-choice options. This process of elimination continues until one particular option has a clear majority of votes.

The Transhumanist Party encourages all members to participate in this process and for other transhumanists to sign up for membership during the exposure period. 

The Section titles below are provisional and will be replaced with official numbers for each plank that is adopted. The Section titles are informational only and will not be included in the adopted versions of the platform planks.

Section E2-A. Morphological Freedom.

Option E2-A-1.

[Based on Section VI of the Nevada Transhumanist Party Platform]

The United States Transhumanist Party advocates for morphological freedom – the right of an individual to alter the appearance, composition, and prospects of his, her, or its organism, as long as such changes do not harm others.

 

Option E2-A-2.

[Platform Adaptation of Article X of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights, Version 2.0]

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 harm others.

The United States Transhumanist Party considers morphological freedom to include the prerogative for a sentient intelligence to set forth in advance provisions for how to handle its physical manifestation, should that intelligence enter into a vegetative, unconscious, or similarly inactive state, notwithstanding any legal definition of death. For instance, a cryonics patient should be entitled to determine in advance that the patient’s body shall be cryopreserved and kept under specified conditions, in spite of any legal definition of death that might apply to that patient under cryopreservation.

The United States Transhumanist Party also recognizes that morphological freedom entails the duty to treat all sapients as individuals instead of categorizing them into arbitrary subgroups or demographics, including as yet undefined subcategorizations that may arise as sapience evolves.

However, the United States Transhumanist Party holds that the proper exercise of morphological freedom must also ensure that any improvement of the self should not result in involuntary harms inflicted upon others. Furthermore, the United States Transhumanist Party recognizes any sentient entity to have the freedom not to modify itself without being subject to negative political repercussions, which include but are not limited to legal and/or socio-economic repercussions.

Potential Add-On Language [Based on Transhuman National Committee Platform, Freedom of Self Policy Plank]

Clause E2-A-Add-1.  The United States Transhumanist Party is focused on the rights of all sapient individuals to do as they see fit with themselves and their own reproductive choices.

Clause E2-A-Add-2. The United States Transhumanist Party recognizes the ethical obligations of sapient beings to be the purview of those individual beings, and holds that no other group, individual, or government has the right to limit those choices – including genetic manipulation or other biological manipulation or any other modifications up to and including biological manipulation, mechanical manipulation, life extension, reproductive choice, reproductive manipulation, cryonics, or other possible modifications, enhancements, or morphological freedoms. It is only when such choices directly infringe upon the rights of other sapient beings that the United States Transhumanist Party will work to develop policies to avoid potential infringements.

Question E2-A-Add-3. If any option of the Morphological Freedom plank is adopted, shall any mention of not harming others be preceded by the word “directly”? For example, if members vote in the affirmative, then in Option E2-A-1, “as long as such changes do not harm others” would be revised to “as long as such changes do not directly harm others”. In Option E2-A-2, “so long as it does not harm others” would be revised to “so long as it does not directly harm others”.

☐ Yes, add the word “directly”.

☐ No, do not add the word “directly”.

Section E2-B. Pro-Intelligence / Pro-Science Position

Option E2-B-1.

[Based on Section II of the Nevada Transhumanist Party Platform]

The United States Transhumanist Party supports the spread of a pro-science culture by emphasizing reason and secular values.

Option E2-B-2.

[Based on Proposal by Daniel Yeluashvili, Base Text]

The United States Transhumanist Party strongly supports and emphasizes all values and organized efforts related to the cultivation of science, reason, intelligence, and rational thinking.

Potential Add-On Language [Based on Proposals by Daniel Yeluashvili, with Additional Options Generated]

Note: It is intended for members to have the options to accept or reject any of the following add-on clauses and to select candidate language within each clause when multiple variants may be feasible.

Clause E2-B-Add-1: The United States Transhumanist Party [Possible Options: condemns, disavows, disregards, frowns upon, places no reliance upon] any and all sources of information that cannot stand up to [Possible Options: academic, rational, factually grounded, objective] scrutiny.

Clause E2-B-Add-2: The United States Transhumanist Party [Possible Options: condemns, disavows, disregards, frowns upon, places no reliance upon] any [Candidate entities for inclusion in the list: individual, organization, belief system] that intentionally distorts [Possible Options: academically, empirically, factually, objectively] verifiable evidence to serve its own agenda, including but not limited to [Candidate adjectives for inclusion in the list: scientific, historical, political, journalistic] evidence.

Clause E2-B-Add-3: The United States Transhumanist Party [Possible Options: condemns, disavows, disregards, frowns upon, places no reliance upon] any position or belief system that contains arguments built upon logical fallacies (with exemption granted to arguments containing both fallacious and logically defensible premises).

Section E2-C. Liberty to Innovate

Option E2-C-1.

[Based on Section III of the Nevada Transhumanist Party Platform]

The United States Transhumanist Party supports maximum individual liberty to engage in scientific and technological innovation for the improvement of the self and the human species. In particular, the United States Transhumanist Party supports all rationally, scientifically grounded research efforts for curing diseases, lengthening lifespans, achieving functional, healthy augmentations of the body and brain, and increasing the durability and youthfulness of the human organism. The United States Transhumanist Party holds that all such research efforts should be rendered fully lawful and their products should be made fully available to the public, as long as no individual is physically harmed without that individual’s consent or defrauded by misrepresentation of the effects of a possible treatment or substance.

Section E2-D. Support for Emerging Technologies

Option E2-D-1.

[Based on Section XVII of the Nevada Transhumanist Party Platform]

The United States Transhumanist Party supports all emerging technologies that have the potential to improve the human condition – including but not limited to autonomous vehicles, electric vehicles, economical solar power, safe nuclear power, hydroelectricity, geothermal power, applications for the sharing of durable goods, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, nanotechnology, robotics, rapid transit, 3D printing, vertical farming, electronic devices to detect and respond to trauma, and beneficial genetic modification of plants, animals, and human beings.

Section E2-E. Smart Infrastructure

Option E2-E-1.

[Based on Proposal by Jennifer Warren]

The United States Transhumanist Party advocates the construction of a self-repairing, self-maintaining smart infrastructure which incorporates the distribution of energy, communications, and clean potable water to every building.