Browsed by
Tag: rationality

Why Aren’t We Afraid of Death?: The First Step Toward Defeating Aging – Article by Alex Kadet

Why Aren’t We Afraid of Death?: The First Step Toward Defeating Aging – Article by Alex Kadet

logo_bg

Alex Kadet


The pain of those fighting to extend human life expectancy

Science articles frequently mention the search for the “elixir of eternal youth.” What a pleasant thought! While we are busy living our lives, the science of extending them is moving at a dizzying pace, and we need only to wait until the international science community plates the solution, ready to serve, right? This statement illustrates how perceptions of reality are skewed toward desired outcomes.

Ask any reputable scientist, activist, or entrepreneur interested in extending human life about the subject, however, and you will learn that the reality is very different. For instance, here is a quotation from Aubrey de Grey, founder of the SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence) Research Foundation and pioneering researcher in the science of aging:

Aubrey de Grey

“. . . if I got a billion dollars today, we would probably bring forward the defeat of aging by about ten years. And it’s a lot of lives, maybe four hundred million.”

I suppose we all understand how insignificant one billion dollars is compared with the global annual expenditures on health care and science. The cost of health care in the United States alone exceeded 3.3 trillion dollars in 2016 and is growing rapidly.

What do these numbers mean? That, without a doubt, humanity is not even close to curing aging, even in the twenty-first century.

Longevity advocacy

At a glance, it seems odd that the idea of extending human life needs advocacy, but longevity scientists and advocates understand that the only obstacle to the development of a cure for aging is a lack of resources: time and money. The dollar has strong voting power, and human lifespan extension is not at the top of the ballot.

For some reason, not enough people are willing to do what objectively seems rational, to overcome the obstacles and diseases that aging causes. What appears to transhumanists, scientists, and researchers to be an undeniable benefit for humankind seems unimportant or even detrimental to others. Dying of old age seems dignified to some people, but in truth it is honorable only in the movies. Therefore, advocacy needs to be prioritized over seemingly more practical immediate problems.

Many people who work in the field of longevity studies are tormented by a fundamental question: If one acknowledges one’s mortality, isn’t working toward radical life extension a most rational use of one’s time? After all, millions of people, with trillions of dollars combined, have a nonzero chance of radically extending life expectancy within the next ten years.

A primary goal of longevity advocates is to attract investments and endorsements from international organizations, including scientific foundations and businesses, and increase the visibility and appeal of research on anti-aging therapy. We aim to market anti-aging science effectively, and raise the prestige of working in our industry to that of working for a venture-capital or tech startup.

Large-scale work must begin now, for a simple reason.

The population of the planet is rapidly aging.

The average age of the world populace is increasing at an alarming pace. Globally, the demographic comprising people aged sixty years or older is growing faster than any other group. If this trend continues, by 2050 the number of seniors in the world will more than double, from 962 million to 2.1 billion. Such a significant change in the composition of the population will inevitably affect economies and societies.

Throughout the history of humankind, aging has been viewed as an inevitable process, leading not so much to illness and suffering (which have always been treated as if separate from aging) but rather to physical death.

Let me draw your attention to the importance of distinguishing between improving the quality of life of the rapidly aging population and developing a treatment for aging.

It is also important to understand that when we talk about defeating aging, we do not put it as equal to immortality. Extending longevity will largely take the form of increasing productive life span and preventing suffering — not only fatigue, reduced physical strength, and impaired memory, but also the internal conflict of remaining young at heart and full of ambition in an aging body. Longevity specialists believe that victory over suffering is achievable and will be a victory over an absolute evil.

Why do we work so hard to treat the effects of aging while doing almost nothing to slow aging itself? Aging is literally a matter of life and death, and yet it commands almost no attention.

Life-Extension Myths

The vast majority of people and organizations (including the World Health Organization, billionaire entrepreneurs, the United Nations, and entire nations) do not include addressing the problems of aging in their short- or long-term agendas. They do not consider aging to be a real and distinct problem. Why not?

Maybe extending human life would be unnatural?

The answer is no.

  • Self-preservation is characteristic of all organisms and is one of the so-called “basic instincts” [1]. All organisms achieve self-preservation by purposefully reducing their own entropy (that is, using external resources to compensate for inevitable energy loss) and maintaining homeostasis (steady internal conditions).
  • People tend to consider aging and age-related diseases to be separate and distinct phenomena, as if aging is different from other abnormalities of the human body. Such thinking is fundamentally flawed. Most people do not have ethical problems with using medicine to treat suffering, but cognitive dissonance often produces ethical objections to therapies designed to treat aging, which is widely treated with dignity and respect, even viewed as sacred.
  • As the seventeenth-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza wrote in his Ethics, “The mind, both in so far as it has clear and distinct ideas, and also in so far as it has confused ideas, endeavors to persist in its being for an indefinite period, and of this endeavor it is conscious” [2]. It is human nature to attempt to survive as long as possible.

[For the interested reader: philosophical and ethical issues that inevitably arise in the fight against aging are discussed in detail in Steven Horrobin’s The Future of Aging, chapter three, “Towards Naturalistic Transcendence: The Value of Life and Life Extension to Persons as Conative Processes.”]

Perhaps the problem is that it is simply impossible to stop the human body from aging?

I don’t think so.

Gerontologists (people who study the science of aging) agree that slowing or preventing aging (that is, eliminating the faults of and repairing the accumulated damage to the body) is a purely technological problem and can be solved. Additionally, the existence of several animal species that are closely evolutionarily related to humans but live much longer than we do demonstrates that extended longevity is possible.

A “road map” for achieving longevity escape velocity has already been developed in the form of a series of specific steps and studies [4], [5]. We cannot predict which research will result in the elongation of the human life span, as there are multiple hypotheses to be tested, but if any current or future research yields actionable results, our most daring imaginings could be surpassed.

But what if we succeed in extending longevity and the resulting future is undesirable?

No, we will not die due to overpopulation.

  • The world’s human population has increased almost fourfold in the past one hundred years, and far from suffering as a result, we now live longer and enjoy greater quality of life than ever before. In fact, natural population decline is causing its own problems in several countries. In the 1970s, adherents of Thomas Malthus’s belief that unchecked population growth inevitably exhausts resources and yields poverty and degradation predicted a worldwide famine and demographic catastrophe by the year 2000. Their predictions did not come true, as they hadn’t taken into account the rapid expansion of agriculture and food production that did occur [6].

Decades will pass before the demographic consequences of victory over aging begin to impact our lives significantly. We will have enough time to adapt to the new circumstances [7].

No, the secret world elite cannot capture the “philosopher’s stone” and enslave the rest of us.

  • In the first years after antibiotics were discovered, they were available only to the rich. Similarly, today such complex and expensive medical interventions as organ transplantation are not widely available, but this is not a reason to ban them [7]. The treatment of aging will likely be very expensive initially, but as soon as the technology becomes known, endeavors to optimize it and expand its availability will inevitably begin. This is an axiom in modern society. It is already impossible (sometimes frighteningly) to keep significant information secret, and in the case of longevity studies, humanity will benefit.

In view of the preceding, we have no reason to doubt that victory over aging is achievable and will be favorable for humanity.

[For the interested reader: you can find more debunked myths here.]


Scientists and science advocates are working to dispel the above myths, but unfortunately their work has not yet produced the desired outcomes. Although it would seem that the possibility of a cure for aging would attract large amounts of resources and greatly impact human worldview and actions, we simply haven’t seen such an effect.

What if the motivation for our inaction doesn’t come from a rational place?

I believe that the general lack of interest in treating aging comes from a lack of fear of aging, as humans tend not to be consciously afraid of death. Where there is no fear of a phenomenon, there is no aim to eliminate it.

So, why aren’t we afraid of death?

  • Fear is a basic emotion based on the self-preservation instinct. It precipitates as a sudden cognitive and behavioral change stimulated by imminent danger [8].
  • Fear can reinforce social connections, such as when an escape for help calls for collective defense [9]. There are many threats in the world, and fear encourages us to change our behavior and unite in order to protect ourselves against them.

Cancer, terrorism, war, air crashes, environmental degradation, global climate change: these and many other dangers have been accounted for in the multibillion-dollar budgets of individual countries, international organizations, private foundations, and nonprofits. Aging is not on the list. I believe I know why.

In his Pulitzer Prize–winning book The Denial of Death, cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker explored the hypothesis that civilization is based not on the suppression of sexuality, as Sigmund Freud believed, but on the suppression of the inherent human fear of death.

Becker argued that at one extreme, civilization is a way for humankind to contain the anxiety of death, and at the other extreme, an individual’s character can be viewed as a complex of defenses against fear of death. In other words, all of our motivation, the whole set of human cognitive attitudes and emotional experiences, is aimed at avoiding the awareness of our own mortality [10].

Despite the fact that we will die someday, few of us think about mortality on a regular basis. In one way or another we become acquainted with death while still children, but our psyche is unable to process the phenomenon fully. Consequently, according to Becker, the unconscious mind forms a complex of balances and defenses that prevent contact with the horror of death.

The existential psychotherapist Irvin Yalom holds a similar point of view on the structure of the human psyche. In his book Existential Psychotherapy, he explores in detail how fear of death permeates the whole being, and how much of human activity implicitly results from this fear.

Mental defenses allow us to maintain mental health and keep from sliding into madness. On the other hand, the same defenses limit our freedom and program our reactions. Dependencies, workaholism, daily rituals, narcissism, anxiety, depression . . . The list of such defenses is long, and we utilize them to reduce our fear of death [11]. Becoming aware of one’s own defense strategies is the first step toward freedom from the limitations of the psyche and cognitive distortions.

Ernest Becker’s theory has been further developed and experimentally confirmed in the framework of terror management theory (TMT) [12]. For the first time in psychology, the horror of death has been studied as an experimental variable. In one study, researchers effected a horror of death in participants, activated their awareness of the inevitability of death, and studied the resulting defense mechanisms. Having experienced the anxiety of facing their own mortality, participants were asked to evaluate punishments for violators of cultural norms; these participants chose far more severe punishments than did the control group [13].

After thirty years of research, terror management theory maintains that the most basic reason death is upsetting and motivating is because it undermines the most basic motive of all, which is a prerequisite for all other need satisfaction — staying alive. More specifically, death is a unique motivator because (1) most of an organism’s biological systems function to keep the organism alive, thus averting death; (2) death must be avoided to enhance opportunities for reproduction and care of offspring, both of which are essential for gene perpetuation; (3) death is the only absolutely inevitable future event; and (4) death threatens to undermine all desires, whether for pleasure, belonging, certainty, meaning, control, competence, self-actualization, or growth [14]. I will discuss these facts in more detail in forthcoming articles.

Cultural worldview (religion, nationalism, etc.) and self-esteem are two common buffers that protect our unconscious from the anxiety of death. Almost every religion is predicated on a belief in an afterlife, thereby allowing adherents to control fear by ignoring or denying death. Also, self-esteem and culture fill life with value, helping us to surpass death symbolically by creating the illusion of continuing to exist through the contributions we make that will outlive us or because the community we identify with will continue to exist after our personal death [15].

Cognitive distortions, such as magical thinking or the denying to believe in our own mortality, push out existential questions from our conscious mind, gently urging us to concentrate on the less painful questions of being [12].

To begin truly active work on increasing human life expectancy and defeating age-related diseases, humankind needs to realize the finiteness of life.

Demystifying common defense mechanisms and the tricks our minds play to make us disregard our own mortality will be necessary in the fight against aging. Increasing awareness is often enough to motivate people to examine their defense mechanisms and resolve the cognitive distortions that make work on aging so unapproachable.

Right now, with modern science making possible technologies that had not even been imaginable before, it’s time to face our fear — to recognize the problem of human aging, and frame it not as a philosophical question of being but as an engineering challenge.

Readers of this article will probably not instantly become gerontologists (scientists specializing in the biology of aging) or sponsors of fundamental scientific research; however, an awareness that aging and death are real can only increase mindfulness for anyone who dares to face it, thus making them happier in the long run [16].

P.S.: Become a Radical Life Extension Hero! Support my research on the Patreon!

I am open to any discussion on the topic of longevity studies. Also, I am preparing a speech on the psychological effects of suppressing the fear of death. Experience shows that even a brief overview of this topic stimulates interest in the treatment of aging.

Furthermore, I am beginning research in the field of experimental social psychology and plan to use TMT techniques to identify optimal ways for delivering the message of longevity activists. If you are interested in collaboration of any kind, feel free to contact me here.

I’d like to thank Ekaterina Gorbacheva and Zachary Vigna for their editorial help.

Alex Kadet is a transhumanist, longevity activist, entrepreneur, and expert in death studies. He is also a member of the U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party.

Sources:

[1] Pavlov I. P. “Twenty years of experience in the objective research of the higher nervous activity.” Science, Moscow, 1973: p. 237.

[2] Spinoza, B. Ethics. Part 3, proposition 9. 1677.

[3] Vishnevsky, A. G. “Reproduction of the population and society.” Мoscow, 1982: p. 110.

[4https://www.lifespan.io/the-rejuvenation-roadmap/

[5https://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging

[6] Trewavas, A. “Malthus foiled again and again.” Nature, 418 (6898), September 2002: pp. 668–670

[7] Sethe, S. & de Magalhaes, J. P. “Ethical Perspectives in Biogerontology.” In: Ethics, Health Policy and (Anti-) Aging: Mixed Blessings, ed. Schermer, M. & Pinxten, W. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2013: pp. 173–188.

[8] Izard, I. The Emotions of Humans. Мoscow, 1980: p. 52–71.

[9] Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. Ethology: The biology of behavior. Oxford, England, 1970

[10] Becker, E. The Denial of Death. Simon & Schuster, New York, 1973.

[11] Yalom, I. D. Existential Psychotherapy. Basic Books, New York”, 1980.

[12] Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T. & Solomon, S. “The causes and consequences of a need for self-esteem: A terror management theory.” In: Public Self and Private Self, ed. R. F. Baumeister. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986: pp. 189–212.

[13] Rosenblatt, A., Greenberg, J., Solomon S., Pyszczynski, T. & Lyon, D. “Evidence for terror management theory: I. The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who violate or uphold cultural values.” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., Vol. 57, 1989: pp. 681–90.

[14] Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Greenberg, J. L. “Thirty Years of Terror Management Theory: From Genesis to Revelation.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 52, 2015: pp. 1–70.

[15] Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Greenberg, J. L. (2015). Thirty Years of Terror Management Theory: From Genesis to Revelation. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 1–70): Psychological Mechanisms Through Which Thoughts of Death Affect Behavior

[16] Killingsworth, M. A. & Gilbert, D. T.. “A Wandering Mind Is an Unhappy Mind.” Science, Vol. 330, issue 6006, 2010: p. 932.

How 2020 Can Be the Year of Transhumanist Politics in America: USTP Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II Interviewed by Steele Archer on the Debt Nation Show

How 2020 Can Be the Year of Transhumanist Politics in America: USTP Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II Interviewed by Steele Archer on the Debt Nation Show

Gennady Stolyarov II
Steele Archer


On November 24, 2019, U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II spoke extensively with Steele Archer on the Debt Nation show regarding recent transhumanist political developments and possibilities to come in 2020, including how 2020 can shape up to become the year of transhumanism in American politics, across the conventional spectrum, with Zoltan Istvan running as a Republican, Andrew Yang running as a Democrat, several Libertarian candidates sympathetic to a highly technological future – with their supporters having the potential to be drawn to the Transhumanist Presidential campaign of Johannon Ben Zion, who will remain in the race all the way to the general election, long after all the other parties’ primaries have concluded.

Watch this conversation here.

Also discussed were subjects such as how transhumanism can give a new sense of purpose and rekindle the belief in progress among Americans, how transhumanism can inaugurate a more rational politics, which seeks creative solutions to replace wedge issues with win-win outcomes, and the key points from the USTP Chairman’s Third Anniversary Message and how they will be implemented so as to further enhance and grow the USTP.

Join the U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party for free, no matter where you reside. Click here to apply in less than a minute.

 

U.S. Transhumanist Party Condemns Egregious and Intentional Misinformation from Biohackinfo and Nick Sobriquet

U.S. Transhumanist Party Condemns Egregious and Intentional Misinformation from Biohackinfo and Nick Sobriquet


October 22, 2019 – The United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party (USTP) unequivocally condemns the false, invented, and malicious allegations contained in two recent articles – one by the pseudonymous authors Glyph and CyphR on the yellow-journalism “Biohackinfo” website, and another by the pseudonymous Nick Sobriquet, published in the Trigger Warning magazine edited by Rachel Haywire. These articles are part of a deliberate, coordinated attack on the transhumanist movement and the many decent, distinguished, accomplished, and benevolent people working within it. These articles also contain numerous outright lies and other half-truths and cherry-picked facts distorted beyond recognition. The USTP is of the view that the authors of these articles are well-aware that they are lying and are using the lies in order to sow chaos and exact vengeance for their side’s loss in the recent USTP Electronic Primary. These tactics – precisely the ones which led these detractors’ side to lose in the Electronic Primary – are despicable, unconscionable, and immoral. They must be exposed and called out as such wherever they are encountered. Furthermore, the content of the Biohackinfo and Sobriquet articles is libelous and defamatory. While the USTP does not consider it worthwhile to initiate legal action in response to these libels (at this time and barring further provocation), the USTP instead endeavors to bring the actual facts of relevant matters to light – for, echoing the words of Justice Louis Brandeis, sunlight is the best of disinfectants, and transparency on the part of the USTP is hoped to thwart the proliferation of the falsehoods spread by Biohackinfo and Sobriquet.

The USTP is the largest transhumanist political organization in the world – a non-monetary organization staffed entirely by volunteers and devoted to advocacy of emerging technologies, life extension, and rationality. Those who are interested in what the USTP actually stands for, can readily find out by consulting our Values, Platform, Transhumanist Bill of Rights, and FAQ.

The USTP Electronic Primary, which concluded on September 30, 2019, was the most open and transparent election known to USTP leadership. Extensive vote results were published on October 1, 2019, confirming Johannon Ben Zion’s victory in the election, including a PDF file illustrating the breakdown of the votes received for each ranking of each candidate, the instant-runoff process, and the validation of the accuracy of the calculations through the independent, open-source Instant-Runoff Voting Tool. A spreadsheet of all individual (anonymized) votes was also published, containing all of the calculations performed in connection with every single vote as part of each round of instant runoffs. Any person who voted in the primary may request that the USTP leadership provide that person with his/her/its randomly assigned Voter ID, using which that person could confirm the presence of his/her/its vote among the published results. During the election, all votes that were submitted electronically were manually validated by USTP leadership (the Chairman, overseen by four USTP Officers – the only individuals to ever have access to the names and e-mail addresses of the individuals who voted) to ensure that the votes originated from registered USTP members. Apart from several instances of unintentionally cast duplicate votes, which were discarded, there were no observed irregularities during the voting process. No candidate or side in this election perpetrated any manner of fraud, falsification, or attempts to enlist non-members to vote.

Unfortunately, Rachel Haywire, who did not win the election by any set of rules (ranked-preference, Condorcet, plurality), and, rather, finished in second place, did not accept defeat gracefully. Her responses and those of some of her supporters, rather, have been contrary to the expectations to which candidates specifically agreed in their Declaration of Interest forms when putting themselves forward for candidacy. These expectations included the following:

(6) The candidate must agree to participate in the USTP Endorsement and Electronic Primary process as set forth herein and to respect the outcome of that process, no matter whether or not the candidate is ultimately endorsed to run for the office of President of the United States.

(9) The candidate must agree to work collaboratively with the USTP during the campaign season and not to disparage the USTP as well as not to work contrary to the interests and goals of the USTP during that time.

Instead, certain supporters of former Candidate Haywire, including Sobriquet and the Biohackinfo authors, have decided to take it upon themselves to conduct a follow-on campaign of dishonesty and sensationalism, and gather their band of few followers to viciously attack the USTP in an undignified manner through yellow journalism and toxic lies.

USTP Secretary Pavel Ilin expressed a commonly held sentiment among the USTP members when he stated, “I love transgressive arts as a form of protest against oppression. But, as with any tool, there are appropriate uses of that tool. Creating chaos is good to resist totalitarian regimes, but it’s not productive when you have a voice and can play on a common cultural field along with other players. During the recent primary election, Rachel Haywire had access to all communication channels on the same terms as every single candidate. If you lost, you lost, you can be unhappy with that, but this is objective reality. Accusing people around without presenting any evidence will not help restoring any sort of justice. I against othering of anyone but I would like to call Rachel Haywire to seek a communication channel and form which will not push people away from her and will not hurt public image of transhumanism.”

The allegations in the Biohackinfo and Sobriquet articles are based on several “big lies” which were invented by the purveyors of the allegations and spread by means of a small circle of supporters of the Haywire campaign citing one another, thereby creating the appearance (but only a flimsy appearance) of a diversity of sources, which all stemmed from the same origin.

One big lie – which the USTP deplores and repudiates in full – is any assertion of a connection with convicted criminal, eugenicist, and suicidist Jeffrey Epstein, a man whose behavior in life and in death showed him to be the antithesis of a transhumanist and whom the USTP condemned unequivocally on August 5, 2019, while not even having been aware of Epstein’s existence prior to revelations of his misconduct by major media outlets. Allegations of Epstein’s connections to transhumanism were contrived by sensation-seeking journalists and spread by conspiracy-theorists seeking to undermine the image and reputation of transhumanism. Of course, the USTP leadership expressed staunch opposition to this hostile ploy and would not countenance it among USTP members or candidates. Associating transhumanism with Epstein unjustly and cynically smears the names of thousands of innocent, hard-working, innovative individuals who likewise deplore Epstein’s crimes.

While Epstein may have donated $100,000 to the Humanity+ organization – which is entirely distinct from the USTP – around 2011 (long before the USTP existed), there is absolutely no evidence of any continued or subsequent involvement of Epstein with any transhumanist organization, including Humanity+. Furthermore, on August 4, 2019, Humanity+ issued a statement which explained that Epstein’s donation had long ago been spent on AI research that “is diametrically opposed to the exploitative and abusive behaviors of Mr. Epstein that were recently revealed in the news. At the time [Humanity+] accepted this donation, Humanity+ had no knowledge of Mr. Epstein’s horrific alleged criminal activity, and we strongly condemn it.” While the USTP will let Humanity+ speak for itself on this matter, the above-quoted statement does not suggest any malfeasance, and no evidence has surfaced to the contrary since that statement was made. The Biohackinfo article is intentionally misleading in using statements such as that “The New York Times revealed that Humanity Plus, a transhumanist organization ran by Max More and his wife Natasha Vita-More, was so deep with Epstein that he was paying the salaries of some of its members, including its Vice-Chairman Ben Goertzel.” The only person known to have had his salary paid by Epstein was Ben Goertzel – and even this occurred without any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. Yet by using the phrasing “some of its members, including […] Goertzel”, the Biohackinfo article intentionally impugns Max More and Natasha Vita-More by association, despite an absolute lack of evidence of any specific connection between them as individuals and Epstein. The USTP condemns this underhanded manner of aspersion against individuals without evidence. Similar despicable rhetorical tactics are found throughout the Biohackinfo article.

Another big lie is the assertion USTP’s decision on August 6, 2019, to postpone the Electronic Primary from August 10 to September 22 was somehow influenced by another organization or its leadership, or intended to derail the prospects of a particular candidate. Nothing could be further from the truth. The decision to extend the primary season and allow new candidates to announce themselves was made by USTP Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II after close consultation with the USTP Officers. All candidates, and all representatives of external organizations, were surprised by the decision’s announcement. The extension of the primary was motivated by the recognition that the chaos sown on social media by those who spread malicious and unsubstantiated allegations about an Epstein-transhumanism connection, made it physically impossible to prepare the ballots in time for August 10, while much of the USTP leadership’s time and attention was diverted toward policing various interactions among candidates and their supporters to prevent a degeneration into pandemonium. The primary was extended because those spreading false allegations created an environment that made it impossible for an orderly, rational vote to take place. As the USTP announcement on August 6, 2019, explained, “Because of this focus on crisis response, our limited resources are strained at this time, and thorough preparations for the election will take a longer time period.” Furthermore, USTP leadership recognized that “This is a time period when tempers are hot, a situation which is uniquely unsuited to thoughtful political decision-making. It is necessary to allow time for tempers to cool and for thoughtful analysis to occur on all sides regarding the candidates, their positions on the issues, and how the ideas of transhumanism could best be advocated for during the 2020 election cycle.” USTP leadership vowed that “The requisite civility needs to be restored to this primary election season, and, accordingly, the USTP leadership will work closely with the candidates to do so. The tone of this primary election season will be reset to align with the USTP’s values of thoughtful, rational, ethical, and policy-focused discourse.” The introduction of new candidates to the process was motivated by the USTP responding to concerns from many of its members, who did not perceive any of the original three candidates with enthusiasm and who sought other options. Notwithstanding, the introduction of new candidates did not undermine the prospects of the original three candidates, who were the only candidates remaining after Round 7 of the instant-runoff process.

The Biohackinfo article erroneously alleges that “The decision to allow more candidates to run was even more Machiavellian, as it split the votes.” This allegation is based on a complete misunderstanding of the ranked-preference voting system, where “vote-splitting” is not a consequential phenomenon, since a voter is asked – and in the USTP Electronic Primary, required – to rank-order all of the choices. After several of Rachel Haywire’s supporters declared their candidacies (an entirely optional action on their part, and one supported by Rachel Haywire), a voter who genuinely preferred those candidates could simply rank Rachel Haywire immediately below them – so that if/when those candidates were eliminated in instant runoffs, a vote for any of those candidates would subsequently be reallocated to Rachel Haywire. As the USTP leadership repeatedly explained on its website, social media, and e-mail communications pertaining to the election, “ranked-preference voting eliminates the incentives for tactical / strategic voting. By rank-ordering all options, you can comfortably put your genuine first choice first, no matter how other people are likely to vote. You are strongly encouraged to vote your conscience and give us your genuine preference order. This will maximize the probability of an outcome that you will find reasonable.” The Biohackinfo authors deliberately ignored this basic fact about how ranked-preference voting worked in order to contrive their “vote-splitting” allegation.

To support their bizarre allegation that the USTP had become “controlled” by Humanity+, the Biohackinfo authors stated that “Natasha Vita-More and others at Humanity Plus had started interfering with the primaries by endorsing BenZion”. A reasonable person will fail to understand how endorsing a candidate – which is any individual’s right in an election – would constitute interference. Natasha Vita-More and several other persons in leadership positions at Humanity+ also happen to be voting members of the USTP, independently of their roles at Humanity+. Endorsing and voting for candidates is their right as USTP members and would be entirely within the rules of any free and open voting system. No officer of Humanity+ had any privileged access to the USTP Electronic Primary results or any ability to alter or manipulate them. Only the USTP Chairman and four USTP Officers had the ability to view the names and e-mail addresses of individuals who cast votes.

Dinorah Delfin, the USTP Director of Admissions and Public Relations, explained that “Allegations about the USTP being under Humanity+ management are false and misleading – these are two different and separate organizations. I have volunteered for the USTP and its management team for almost two years. Fellow USTP Officers and I communicate extensively to make decisions about our initiatives and course of action, which also includes establishing strong bonds with any Transhumanist organization focused on educating and forwarding our shared cause of making accessible to everyone life extension and other transhumanist technologies. Allegations of conspiracy and foul play are not only false, but also undermine all of our efforts to make Transhumanism accessible for people even in the most remote areas of the world who are seeking for ways to regain hope in humanity and in our ability to help the world become a better place for all. Transhumanism is about improving the human condition, and while these false allegations show the worst of human nature, they also represent an opportunity to gain new insights and perspectives towards more conscientious self-actualization.”

When faced with countless lies, the best defense is to provide evidence for the truth.  No, there were no “paper-thin Facebook accounts from Bangladesh” (the USTP has a well-established application and verification process, and this process has been documented not just on social media, but also on the USTP website). Indeed, the USTP only has four members from Bangladesh, and only one of those members – a frequent poster on the Transhumanist Party Facebook group and a loyal and valued member of the USTP – voted in this election. Aspersions that there were “bought votes for [Candidate Ben Zion] from Bangladesh” are not only false – but they also smack of racist and nativist prejudice. The truth is that the sole USTP member from Bangladesh who voted annoyed Rachel Haywire and some of her supporters because of his imperfect English and the techno-optimist flavor of his posts, and therefore Rachel Haywire and her supporters invented the assertion that votes from Bangladesh were purchased. In fact, no money changed hands among any candidates and their supporters during the course of this election.

There were no “countless polls” that indicated a Haywire lead. Rather, there was just one completely informal, unscientific Facebook poll, not sanctioned by USTP leadership, which was initiated as a curiosity by former Candidate Kimberly Forsythe, who herself later removed the poll after realizing the potential of such polls to be gamed and to provide misleading information. Rachel Haywire and her supporters spread the poll amongst their circles and stacked the poll in their favor – even though a Facebook poll has no means to prevent non-members from voting, and thus many of the approximately 41 votes cast for Haywire in that poll were from friends of Haywire who were not members of the USTP. Those who allege that the poll had any manner of significance fail to understand that the vast majority of the USTP membership did not follow day-to-day developments on Facebook and thus had no awareness of the poll. Furthermore, Rachel Haywire garnered 72 actual votes during the election, which was greater than her count in the poll – but her base of support primarily revolved around her Facebook circles, while other candidates were able to attract support from a broader base of individuals, many of whom do not necessarily spend significant amounts of time on social media. Regardless, the unscientific and subsequently removed poll played no role in any subsequent actions by the USTP leadership, which would have been the same had there been no poll, or had the poll displayed different counts.

Furthermore, contrary to allegations in the Sobriquet and Biohackinfo articles, there was no “Chosen One” (in fact, the USTP had reprimanded several candidates publicly for policy violations, including the candidate who eventually won), and the results were posted publicly for everyone to see, along with the objective metrics and scientific process used to conduct the entire voting campaign.

The Biohackinfo article decisively undermines its credibility when it asserts that Johannon Ben Zion was “ordained” “[a]t an unknown “transhumanist” festival that is a bland, blatant rip off of Haywire’s Extreme Futurist Fest”. That festival is RAADfestthe premier festival for supporters of life extension and world-class scientists to meet, share ideas, meet with tens of journalists and documentary filmmakers, and deliver presentations which subsequently enjoy worldwide reach. At the 2019 RAADfest in Las Vegas, Nevada, renowned speakers such as Dr. Aubrey de Grey, Dr. Bill Andrews, Liz Parrish, Dr. Jose Cordeiro, Dr. Ray Kurzweil, Dr. Sandra Kaufmann, Dr. Gregory Fahy, and tens of other world-class scientists, doctors, and advocates communicated with over a thousand attendees – and the many recordings of their remarks will reach hundreds of thousands more. Disparaging RAADfest as an “unknown transhumanist festival” is so misguided as to be ludicrous; indeed, this is the reason why the Biohackinfo authors did not mention it by name. Had they mentioned it, their article would have immediately been recognized as a disingenuous hack job by anyone who knows anything about transhumanism and life extension. Those who would like to view Johannon Ben Zion’s acceptance speech at RAADfest – which was seen live by over one thousand attendees and was met with a standing ovation – may do so here. (A further, professionally produced version of the recording is also forthcoming.)

By making wild and unsubstantiated claims and engaging in extraordinary leaps in logic, making repeated false accusations, engaging in character assassinations, and insulting and alienating a large number of USTP Officers, members, and potential members, while attempting to throw the entire organization into disrepute, Rachel Haywire and some of her supporters provoked so much ill will and aversion, that a large number of people – 57 out of 312 voters – ranked Rachel Haywire in absolute last place (below the “None of the Above” option). This was the downfall Sobriquet mentions in his article – a downfall brought upon by vicious, delusional, and irrational behavior that was completely devoid of reality and dignity, and which alienated Haywire and her followers from significant constituencies among the USTP membership.

The idea that the Transhumanist Party, a private organization run entirely by volunteers, and which has no assets, no income, and no method for accepting donations, is an “elite cabal” or “beholden to the global mega-rich” is not only completely false, but is an insult to the hard-working men and women who have donated countless hours of their personal time to advocate for goals such as curing disease and alleviating poverty, at great personal expense and opportunity cost. It is deeply reprehensible for Sobriquet to allege that “Beneath the surface of this movement lay a viper’s nest of ego, scandal, and filthy stinking money” – when absolutely no money was involved in the USTP election.

Sobriquet then alleges that “purges” began as soon as allegations about Epstein “came out”. In fact, there were no purges – just the expulsion of three repeat troublemakers who were former members of the USTP, as well as several other non-USTP members who had been added to the Transhumanist Party Facebook group by Rachel Haywire and her supporters due to a since-fixed error in the moderation settings. One of the banned individuals was a deranged troll who alternately went by the names Dominique Davis and Sebastian Lenoir, and who began harassing USTP members and Officers with completely unfounded and contrived allegations of despicable Epstein-like behaviors. On August 21, 2019, USTP Chairman Stolyarov made an announcement of the banning of Davis/Lenoir, which included the following remark:

I am convinced at this point that anyone alleging that the despicable behaviors of Jeffrey Epstein have any parallel in the transhumanist movement is making such allegations out of malice. Accordingly, I declare a zero-tolerance policy toward such allegations within this group. Any person making an allegation of pedophilia against a member of the USTP will be instantly banned from this group and from the U.S. Transhumanist Party. Such allegations are false, and those making them know them to be false. Moreover, any sensible person knows them to be false. False and malicious allegations are contrary to the USTP’s Community Guidelines and to the Constitution of the U.S. Transhumanist Party. Moreover, they are civil offenses under United States law.

There is only one possible intention of those who make allegations of pedophilia against innocent individuals – and that is to tarnish those individuals’ reputations out of spite and a desire to destroy. It is not only proper to ban those who seek to do so – it is absolutely necessary to preserve decency and civilized order and prevent the ruination of innocent lives.

Another individual who had been banned from the U.S. Transhumanist Party was Nick Sobriquet himself, but not until he had engaged in concerted trolling for a month. When the USTP extended its time window for candidates to declare themselves, Sobriquet – a citizen of the United Kingdom and ineligible for the Presidency of the United States – applied as a “National Bolshevist” candidate, espousing authoritarian and totalitarian views inimical to transhumanism. On August 13, 2019, after

the USTP leadership rejected his farcical “candidacy” based on its ineligibility and incompatibility with the USTP’s values, Sobriquet made a post which included a meme depicting angry, armed skeletons, a sickle-and-hammer flag with a design evocative of the Nazi flag, and the words “NAZBOL GANG ASSEMBLE” – clearly, everything that transhumanism is not. Throughout August and early September 2019, Sobriquet continued to post hostile memes of the “Nazbol” and “Trazbol” (Sobriquet’s invented “Transhuman Bolshevism”) varieties. Per the USTP leadership’s understanding, Sobriquet is not an actual national socialist but was rather, in a trollish fashion, using memes and tactics he knew to be antithetical to transhumanism in order to disrupt and undermine the discourse within the Transhumanist Party Facebook group. Nonetheless, he was tolerated for a long time with only written warnings and moderation of his posts.

The last straw regarding Sobriquet’s behavior came after the USTP leadership issued a formal warning to Rachel Haywire on September 6, 2019 – also for spreading various false allegations (documented in the warning). In the subsequent discussion thread, Sobriquet falsely accused the USTP leadership of being in the “pocket” of nefarious “interests” – even though, as was subsequently again pointed out to Sobriquet, the USTP is a non-monetary organization and is not influenced by money in making its decisions. Despite this, Sobriquet continued to impugn the integrity of USTP leadership by making accusations of “sinister behavior” and stating, absolutely without evidence, that “There are many ways in which a man can be bought and sold. Non-monetary organisation or not.” Sobriquet was specifically warned that casting these unsubstantiated and insulting aspersions would lead to his expulsion, but immediately afterward, he asserted that the USTP Chairman had no integrity – at which time Sobriquet was indeed banned – not because of that isolated statement, but because of the accumulation of hostile activities and unjustified aspersions that preceded it and were pushed by it over the edge of acceptability. After the conclusion of the election, Chairman Stolyarov specifically offered Sobriquet the option to rejoin the USTP, after Sobriquet made a post which suggested that he might accept the election results with grace. Sobriquet, however, politely declined – a decision which the USTP respected. It is unfortunate, however, that Sobriquet departed from his temporarily more high-minded tone by authoring an article filled with cynical and egregious libels.

Yet another individual banned from the USTP was Michael Lorrey, a former member who erroneously but insistently accused the USTP of violating federal law, even though the USTP was not conducting a federal election. As Chairman Stolyarov expressed, “There are, at this stage, no candidates running for federal office that have been endorsed by the USTP. This is a purely internal, advisory vote of a private organization, bound solely by that organization’s rules.” Yet Michael Lorrey, out of a misguided extreme nationalism, demanded that the USTP disenfranchise all of its Allied Members or else face a complaint from Lorrey to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It was the threat of an FEC complaint, which would be a hostile legal action, which led Lorrey to be banned, since an individual demonstrating the intent to take hostile legal action against the USTP thereby places himself in opposition to and thus outside of the USTP. The USTP’s policy of allowing Allied Members to vote in the USTP’s internal elections had been contained in Article II, Section VIII, since November 2016, and had been prominently publicized since that time (including on the USTP’s Membership Application Form) such that Lorrey should have been aware of it from the onset of his membership. It is clear that Lorrey – who made the demand that the USTP verify voters’ citizenship using a blockchain – a completely impractical and extremely resource-intensive task for a relatively small, non-monetary organization, and furthermore a demand that would expose many individuals’ sensitive private information to an immutable presence on a blockchain – simply sought to derail the election altogether through his demand and threat. Lorrey’s threat was particularly malicious and frivolous in light of the fact that the FEC itself acknowledges on its own website that U.S. Supreme Court precedent in the case of Bluman v. FEC (2011-2012) supports the legality of the USTP’s approach toward Allied Membership – given that the USTP’s Allied Members do not contribute any money to the USTP or to any candidate but rather only offer their volunteer services in the form of advisory voting and other input of ideas:

Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer “exemption” as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone.  […]

In a decision that was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the foreign national ban “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting process—providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.” Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 290 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d 132 S. Ct. 1087 (2012).

At no point was any individual banned from the USTP for merely discussing a subject, offering a civil opinion, or disagreeing with the USTP leadership on an idea or course of action. All banned individuals engaged in some combination of wildly false allegations, threats of hostility, unrestrained name-calling, trolling, and denunciations of the USTP as a whole.

Sadly, with the sort of behavior Nick Sobriquet, the Biohackinfo authors, and their ilk have been demonstrating, it would be difficult for them to call themselves transhumanist, because not only are they not interested in improving the human condition (their actions to date have resulted in much harm, rather than benefit), but also because their words and actions represent some of the egregious human failings that transhumanism endeavors to overcome. In fact, to call them transhumanist would be to call coal a clean form of energy, or to suggest that lions are herbivores, or to say that tabloid journalism (precisely what Sobriquet and Biohackinfo have engaged in) is a form of art.

Furthermore, Sobriquet errs in asserting that “There was no constitution, no checks and balances, and no mandate.” The USTP Constitution can be found here for all to see, and the checks and balances and mandate stem from the same fair, transparent, democratic election process which the likes of Nick Sobriquet and the Biohackinfo authors seek to disparage and undermine. Yet, in spite of these aspersions, the USTP succeeded in carrying out its 2019 Electronic Primary election and endorsed a candidate in accord with the decision of the majority of our members.

As Arin Vahanian, USTP Director of Marketing, noted, “We are the thoughts we have, the beliefs we hold, the words we speak, the actions we conduct, and to a large extent, the way we treat other people, especially the needy. A faction of detractors has shown a callous and blatant disregard for the truth, and through toxic, irrational, and belligerent behavior, insulted countless people and unfortunately damaged the transhumanist movement in the eyes of the general public. We must rise above this manufactured chaos and show that we stand for more than this. We stand for goals such as curing disease, improving the human condition, and making the world a better, safer, kinder place for all humans, and not just a select few.”

Sobriquet is correct when he states that people should be better. He, the Biohackinfo authors, and Rachel Haywire should start by denouncing propaganda, chaos, libel, and slander, and then by apologizing for the reprehensible aspersions they have cast against innocent and decent human beings who earnestly desire and work toward a better world.

“No, there is no ‘filthy stinking money’, as Sobriquet suggests, but there is filthy stinking behavior perpetrated by a few individuals whose very goal is pandemonium and plunging the entire movement into chaos and ignominy,” remarked Vahanian. “This is an outcome that no genuine transhumanist will stand for. We call upon our community to remain focused on our goal of improving the human condition, through acts of kindness and benevolence and through a dedication to science, technology, and the arts, as we move toward the betterment of humanity.”

Do not believe malicious lies from disreputable sources. Look around this website, and find out for yourself what the U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party actually stands for. If you like what you see, join us for free here

#IAmTranshuman – Video Compilation #1

#IAmTranshuman – Video Compilation #1

logo_bgB.J. Murphy
Ira Pastor
Tom Ross
José Luis Cordeiro
Charlie Kam
Bill Andrews
Gennady Stolyarov II


Leading transhumanists from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives provide concise, powerful statements as to why they are transhuman. The Transhuman Era has arrived; some of us are aware of this already, whereas others are transhuman but do not know it yet. The #IAmTranshuman campaign helps illustrate how emerging technologies and the accompanying shifts in thinking are already transforming everyday life.

This video was compiled and formatted by Tom Ross, the U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party’s Director of Media Production.

The following transhumanists are featured, in order of appearance:

B.J. Murphy, Director of Social Media, U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party
Ira Pastor, Regeneration Advisor, U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party
Tom Ross, Director of Media Production, U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party
José Luis Cordeiro, Technology Advisor and Ambassador to Spain, U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party
Charlie Kam, Director of Networking, California Transhumanist Party
Bill Andrews, Biotechnology Advisor, U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party
Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party

Learn more about the #IAmTranshuman campaign, the Transhuman Present Project (#TranshumanPresent), and how you can readily participate here.

You can participate in the #IAmTranshuman campaign by submitting still images or video recordings of one minute or less (15 seconds or less for Instagram stories, one minute or less for Instagram-compatible videos). Use the hashtag #IAmTranshuman, and let us know if you would like your video included in a subsequent compilation!

Become a member of the U.S. Transhumanist Party for free, no matter where you reside. Apply here in less than a minute.

Become a Foreign Ambassador for the U.S. Transhumanist Party. Apply here.

James Hughes’ Problems of Transhumanism: A Review (Intro + Part 1) – Article by Ojochogwu Abdul

James Hughes’ Problems of Transhumanism: A Review (Intro + Part 1) – Article by Ojochogwu Abdul

logo_bg

Ojochogwu Abdul


Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

Introduction

In 2010, James Hughes, Executive Director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET), having then just stepped down from the Board of Directors of the World Transhumanist Association (presently known as Humanity+), took up an interesting challenge during the Spring of that year to reflect on the current state of transhumanist thought and determine what the questions were that the transhumanist movement needed to answer in order to move forward. Introducing a series of articles with which he hoped to navigate through a number of heady ideas and issues concerning transhumanism, Hughes opens by posing: “What are the current unresolved issues in transhumanist thought? Which of these issues are peculiar to transhumanist philosophy and the transhumanist movement, and which are more actually general problems of Enlightenment thought?” Further, he queried, “Which of these are simply inevitable differences of opinion among the more or less like-minded, and which need a decisive resolution to avoid tragic errors of the past?”

Some clarification is made by Hughes on the “Enlightenment” as referring to a wide variety of thinkers and movements beginning in the seventeenth century, continuing through the early nineteenth century, and centered in Britain, France, Germany, and as increasingly demonstrated by recent scholarship, manifesting on a global dimension with significant contributions from thinkers and movements across Europe, North America, and the Caribbean. Hughes points out further the relevance of these thinkers and movements in terms of their endeavour in broadly emphasizing the capacity of individuals for achieving social and technological progress through application of critical reason to investigate nature, establish new forms and institutions of governance, and transcend such stagnating (or even retrogressive) forces as superstition and authoritarianism.

The engagement Hughes then sets for himself as he proceeded forward were a set of reflections which he was to structure around two general questions:

  1. An attempt to parse out which unresolved problems transhumanism has inherited from the Enlightenment; and
  2. How transhumanist technological utopianism has both inspired and delayed scientific and political progress over the last 300 years.

By addressing these questions, Hughes proposed to challenge a prevailing anti-utopian sentiment and hopefully furnish awareness of the way that dynamic optimism about transcendent possibilities motivated scientific innovation and democratic reform through the work of such thinkers and proto-transhumanists like the Marquis de Condorcet, Joseph Priestley, and J.B.S. Haldane. Indeed, for Hughes, transhumanism and techno-utopianism are part of the family of Enlightenment philosophies, both of which could be traced back to the original Enlightenment thinkers 300 years ago. The ideological conflicts within transhumanism today are, therefore, as Hughes would argue, to be understood by transhumanists as but the product of some 300-year-old conflicts within the Enlightenment itself.

The outcome of this effort, thankfully undertaken by Hughes, was a series of six essays grappling with diverse transhumanism-related issues ranging from problems surrounding the unsustainable autonomy of reason/rationality, and the belief in progress in contrast with rational uncertainty, to matters of deism, atheism and naturalist theology, from liberal democracy and technological absolutism to moral universalism and relativism, and from ideas concerning liberal individualism to the (threat of) erosion of personal identity.

Hughes titled this series of essays “Problems of Transhumanism”, each with its distinctive sub-title. And if one thing at least is to be appreciated from reading these articles, it is, in my modest opinion, the success with which they present the modern transhumanist project as bearing within its character and objective “the unfinished internal contradictions of the Enlightenment tradition.” The author, of course, emphasizes from the onset a yet important motive to his attempt which was to make clear which criticisms of transhumanism are internal contradictions, and which proceed from “external, non-Enlightenment predicates.”

Over the next week or so, I’ll be doing a review of these articles serially, starting with Part 1 below, while also incorporating some relevant views from a number of other thinkers as may be necessary, to aid commentary or analysis of Hughes’ arguments. This exercise, on my part, is essentially intended and hopefully geared to serve as an expository approach towards highlighting the contemporary philosophy and cultural movement of transhumanism whilst encouraging further discourse on the subject.

I invite and would be glad to have as many that may be interested in working through these ideas and issues with me, even as I endeavour, with these series of articles, to open conversations about them.

Read More Read More

Transhumanism: Contemporary Issues – Presentation by Gennady Stolyarov II at VSIM:17 Conference in Ravda, Bulgaria

Transhumanism: Contemporary Issues – Presentation by Gennady Stolyarov II at VSIM:17 Conference in Ravda, Bulgaria

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II


Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party, outlines common differences in perspectives in three key areas of contemporary transhumanist discourse: artificial intelligence, religion, and privacy. Mr. Stolyarov follows his presentation of each issue with the U.S. Transhumanist Party’s official stances, which endeavor to resolve commonplace debates and find new common ground in these areas. Watch the video of Mr. Stolyarov’s presentation here.

This presentation was delivered by Mr. Stolyarov on September 14, 2017, virtually to the Vanguard Scientific Instruments in Management 2017 (VSIM:17) Conference in Ravda, Bulgaria. Mr. Stolyarov was introduced by Professor Angel Marchev, Sr. –  the organizer of the conference and the U.S. Transhumanist Party’s Ambassador to Bulgaria.

After his presentation, Mr. Stolyarov answered questions from the audience on the subjects of the political orientation of transhumanism, what the institutional norms of a transhuman society would look like, and how best to advance transhumanist ideas.

Download and view the slides of Mr. Stolyarov’s presentation (with hyperlinks) here.

Listen to the Transhumanist March (March #12, Op. 78), composed by Mr. Stolyarov in 2014, here.

Become a member of the U.S. Transhumanist Party for free, no matter where you reside. Fill out our Membership Application Form here.

Become a Foreign Ambassador for the U.S. Transhumanist Party. Apply here.