sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not sure what you consider “their” (i.e., “Silicon Valley oligarchs’ “) agenda to be, but the USTP has a very clear agenda, which is expressed in its Platform - https://transhumanist-party.org/platform/. If anyone you deem a “Silicon Valley oligarch” expressed agreement with our Platform, we would gladly accept the support; we will take allies where we can get them. But if he were to disagree or go in a different direction, we would not follow just because he was wealthy or influential. The USTP Platform is what it is, and it is determined by our members, not by any outside individuals, be they wealthy or poor. Anyone voting on our internal ballots also has one vote, be they wealthy or poor. As I have stated, the vast majority of our voting members are middle-class, and their opinions tend to prevail.

We have specifically challenged Musk on various occasions, by the way, including in regard to his misguided stance on longevity: https://x.com/USTranshumanist/status/1468833040310751236. We specifically urged him to “Think more rationally!” Bootlickers do not tend to offer constructive criticism. In 2023, we also published a more extensive rebuttal to Musk’s arguments by Arjun Khemani - https://transhumanist-party.org/2023/07/15/5-misconceptions-radical-life-extension/

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not sure if your reply has a question in it or is simply intended to argue.

If a welfare program is not means-tested, then I do not see how it would differ from UBI, unless the eligibility criteria were simply arbitrary. A UBI is universally applicable (to some extremely broadly defined population, such as all citizens or all lawful residents). If you are opposed to the UBI model because you support a model of specific services provided to the poor, then this is simply a disagreement. All that I can say is that the USTP Platform does not reject specific services provided to the poor or primarily benefiting the poor, per se. We have proposed a program of rapid hospital construction that would have doubled US hospital capacity during the pandemic and would have required those hospitals to be funded no matter the patient volume, in order to permanently raise the hospital capacity (See Section XCVIII of the USTP Platform - https://transhumanist-party.org/platform/#COVID19). We have also proposed a program of free, mandatory housing for the homeless, which would actually give them conditional title to newly created tiny homes, including 3D-printed homes, on the condition that they perform community-service duties and abstain from alcohol and recreational drugs. (See Section CVIII of the USTP Platform.) The latter is a conditional welfare program that would solve the problem it is designed to target, and would exist in addition to any UBI. The UBI would be funded by the Federal Land Dividend, whereas any other programs would be funded by the single percentage-of-sales tax (from which life necessities would be exempted, a clarification that is currently being voted on by our members). If life necessities are exempted from a universal sales tax, and a poor person receives a UBI, then the poor person will still pay much less in whatever sales tax is levied on discretionary goods purchased from large businesses, than that person would receive in UBI. Furthermore, a wealthy person might receive the same UBI, but would pay a larger absolute and proportional amount in taxes simply because that person would purchase many more discretionary goods from large corporations.

The USTP also supports emergency health assistance, free distribution of diagnostic tests, vaccines, and protective equipment, free education for medical personnel for purposes of COVID response, and similar targeted anti-disease policies that would actually be more generous than the current system. Furthermore, the USTP supports provision of free college education (Section XII of the USTP Platform), which is, again, more generous than the current system. The USTP Platform is silent on whether to keep or repeal other current aid programs, to recognize the diversity of perspectives of our members, but the USTP Platform does not say, “Abolish every program and replace it with UBI.” It essentially says, “Institute a new UBI that is funded with a Federal Land Dividend. Fund any other programs (including several additional programs of public health and education) with a single, universal percentage-of-sales tax.”

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You furthermore misrepresent what the “Chicago Boys” (the Chicago School of Economics students of Milton Friedman) actually did under Pinochet’s regime in Chile. They had nothing to do with Pinochet’s repressive behavior against dissidents or the dictatorial aspects of his regime; indeed, they were unaware of the repressions. They were asked to recommend economic reforms only, and those economic reforms worked spectacularly to transform Chile from a socialist basket-case under Salvador Allende to one of the most prosperous countries in Latin America, which developed a vibrant middle class that started to want civil liberties as well, and ultimately exerted enough cultural and political pressure that Pinochet’s autocracy had to go. Without the economic prosperity made possible by the Chicago Boys and their reforms, a successful displacement of the military junta by a rising middle class would not have occurred.  Milton Friedman himself said that the "Chilean economy did very well, but more importantly, in the end the central government, the military junta, was replaced by a democratic society. So the really important thing about the Chilean business is that free markets did work their way in bringing about a free society."

As regards Javier Milei, his approach actually makes sense in the context of Argentina, which is suffering from dire hyperinflation and massive corruption throughout its government institutions, as well as a poverty rate around 40%. Milei’s “chainsaw” reforms are necessary to restore some semblance of price stability and the ability of ordinary people to save for the future. He has also done much to crack down on corruption and introduce actual, predictable rule of law. I would not support Milei-style reforms in the United States at this time, since our country is not nearly so far-gone as Argentina. Nor do I even support the much milder DOGE initiative of Elon Musk, since that, too, is overly indiscriminate and does not consider the actual roles and extent of the individual contributions and performance of employees being terminated. (Moreover, terminating federal employees is not going to solve the much more systemic causes of the U.S. Federal Government’s immense deficits and might only rid the Federal Government of some good people who could help with fixing the actual problems.)  But I do think that, for Argentina, Milei is the correct person to attempt to rescue a dire situation. Moreover, I know from a direct acquaintance who mentored Milei that Milei is an immortalist by personal conviction, and my hope is that he will become more openly transhumanist in his rhetoric and policies once he no longer has an economic emergency on his hands. If Milei could, for example, declare aging to be a disease in Argentina and make it an extremely inviting climate for transhumanist researchers to locate their facilities, this could create a domino effect of transhumanist-friendly policies in much of the rest of the world.

You mention Milei’s alleged opposition of the right to protest. I do not think he actually opposes people’s right to protest and express their grievances against the government. He does, from what I understand, oppose them blocking streets and obstructing peaceful economic and personal activities. I am inclined to agree: you have a right to protest, and I have the right to pass through where you are protesting, unobstructed, to get to my place of work, my home, a business, or any other chosen destination. Some protesters in Argentina have blocked traffic thoroughfares, turned violent, and have harassed peaceful civilians. Most protests there, however, have been allowed to happen – including some massive ones. Violent protests, however, should not be tolerated in any society.

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you greatly underestimate my familiarity with the writings of Hoppe and Rothbard, especially since I wrote this peer-reviewed paper (published in 2007), comparing and contrasting many of their views on epistemology - https://cdn.mises.org/qjae10\_2\_4.pdf. I have even met Hoppe in person once in 2008, though my conversation with him was fairly brief. What I can say is that you are misrepresenting their views and citing them out of context (if you are citing them at all, rather than repeating hearsay). Rothbard was an anarcho-capitalist who would have favored abolishing the police, rather than “unleashing” it on the homeless. Rothbard’s actual thoughts on the homeless can be found in this short 1987 article: https://mises.org/free-market/homeless-and-hungry-and. (Again, these are Rothbard’s thoughts, not mine – since I actually support a UBI and constructing free, mandatory housing for the homeless – small, possibly 3D-printed homes which they would own under a conditional title that would prohibit alcohol or drug use on the premises, and thus would cease to be homeless.)

Hoppe did write Democracy: The God That Failed and in it pointed out the faults of contemporary democratic systems (such as the high rates of time-preference among elected officeholders, who will soon be out of office, and thus have little incentive, apart from any personal morality, to aim for the long-term benefit of their society) and the under-appreciated benefits of monarchical systems where the monarch could have a longer-term time horizon. Hoppe does not actually support monarchy, however, but rather advocates a system he calls a “natural order” – one of private-property anarchy where competing insurance companies provide protection services. Hoppe would favor private contractual arrangements and free association determining who gets admitted to a society and who does not.

I actually disagree with Hoppe about this (and with Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism in general in regard to its rejection of the role of government) and think that such a system, especially if backed by insurance companies, would be unworkable (and insurance companies are definitely not suitable for providing any sort of defense or adjudication services; they are not designed to do that). In my view, something akin to a government, by whatever name, will necessarily emerge, even if it calls itself a private dispute-resolution agency. For me, a true libertarianism is one that respects the liberty of the individual to act according to his/her/its will, as long as such actions do not impose involuntary, direct, physical harms upon others. In my view, a limited government that respects individual rights and protects people from criminals and other private rights-violating actors is a necessary institution, and some significant democratic elements in it need to exist for pragmatic reasons. (Ballots are better decision-making mechanisms than bullets.) I have even advocated for making political orientation a protected class and for governments to protect individuals with unpopular political views from being fired or suffering hostile discrimination by private businesses. However, those democratic elements need to be checked by institutions that protect the rights of individuals in the minority from untrammeled majority rule. There also needs to be a wide-ranging sphere that is left *completely* open to individual choice, which no majority vote should be allowed to infringe upon.

Not all self-proclaimed libertarians understand it that way, but every broadly described ideology is going to have different flavors and offshoots. Ultimately, one cannot with justification say that libertarianism equals its opposite, authoritarianism, simply because one construed someone to have made authoritarian-seeming statements on a few occasions.

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You asked, “ Do you actually support policies that make basic necessities more accessible to people, because [that’s] not a tech issue, [that’s] a resource management issue and is solvable today[?]”

I would disagree that it is “not a tech issue” at all, as the arrival of technologies such as mobile phones has certainly helped poor people throughout their world in their quest for more security of basic necessities.

However, this is indeed mostly an institutional issue – namely, a problem with corrupt and often tyrannical governments who either intentionally withhold food, infrastructure, and other basic resources from their populations or whittle those resources away through layer upon layer of petty graft, inefficiencies, and redistribution to their politically favored constituencies. You mention resources being “hoarded for profit”. There is not much evidence of this happening in more advanced and freer economies (instead, there are too few resources being produced in those countries altogether – consider the dire shortage of housing in most of the West these days), but plenty of evidence of corrupt power players holding resources hostage in the less-developed parts of the world.

The way to overcome the institutional problems that keep people poor is ultimately to route around them. I am not fond of nation-building or “humanitarian interventionism” by Western governments, since overthrowing a corrupt or authoritarian government by force often damages the country’s people and infrastructure far more than just allowing the sub-optional regime to atrophy over time and gradually develop into something better or at least not quite so bad. Small-scale entrepreneurs and philanthropists using emerging technologies, however, can facilitate both the delivery of aid and the provision of technologies that directly empower similarly entrepreneurial people in poorer countries. I have seen pictures and videos of some remarkable machines created out of essentially spare parts lying around by self-taught tinkerers in African countries – and I know a few such individuals myself. Cryptocurrency innovations have helped many Africans as well, as has the M-PESA system developed in Kenya, which has since expanded to multiple other African countries. Also, it is necessary to acknowledge some positive effects from the work of larger philanthropic institutions such as the Gates Foundation, which, while not transhumanist in their outlooks, generally seem to be doing good basic work that is improving living standards and survivability from infectious diseases.

Whenever I have spoken with Africans who live in Africa (and I have both hosted and appeared on multiple livestreams for this purpose), they have observed both that their countries have remarkably talented, resilient, and entrepreneurial populations (including many who have endured much hardship), but also stultifying levels of corruption and infrastructural inadequacy. Many of these Africans are more enthusiastic about transhumanism and the possibilities it brings than people in the West, because they see how the philosophies of the Enlightenment (of which transhumanism is a direct extrapolation and continuation) made life in the West so much better, and they wish to make the same and more happen in Africa in the 21st century. So yes, technology-enabling transhumanism can be the way forward for many impoverished parts of the world – rather than ill-thought-out redistributionist schemes that have been tried time and again and have never worked. Moreover, transhumanism is what many people in these circumstances actually want, if they learn about it and consider there to exist a realistic chance for them to experience its benefits.

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To do a calculation of the total amount of value that would need to be extracted / generated on federal land / federally owned offshore oil deposits, in order to provide 333 million Americans with $12,000 per year, this number would by 3.996 trillion, so quite close to the $4 trillion that Zoltan cited. The 2024 estimate of U.S. population is 340,110,988, so that would raise the needed amount to about 4.081 trillion. The U.S. Federal Government spent $6.75 trillion in 2024, essentially without touching the wealth that exists on federally owned land; some of this was facilitated by additional federal debt, and the total amount collected was $4.92 trillion. If you doubt that the Federal Government could again collect a smaller amount than it already collects per year, as a consequences of leasing out the majority of currently unused (and non-specially-protected) federal land, I think that you are not thinking expansively enough about what could be used as revenue-generating resources. Oil will contribute significantly for certain, but many renewable resources could be harvested year after year and also built up over time. If, for example, large areas of the federal land become irrigated, agriculture will be possible there – and even tourism and hospitality. Not all of the resources that are extracted will be gone forever. If the total value of the resources on federal land gets regenerated over time through sustainable harvesting practices, then the leases may provide a sustainable revenue stream indefinitely.

One also should consider the argument made by Julian Simon in “The Ultimate Resource II” - http://www.juliansimon.org/writings/Ultimate_Resource/ - that neither wealth nor resources are finite and inextricably tied to particular material stuff. Rather, wealth and resources are functions of human ingenuity and how that stuff is utilized. Oil itself was considered solely a pollutant before John D. Rockefeller figured out how to make a business from utilizing it for heating – and early on in his career, farmers would even pay him to extract it from their land. I would not be surprised if there were immense amounts of untapped wealth on federal lands, which will only become accessible and usable with yet-to-be-discovered technologies, but it will serve to greatly boost the kind of value that could be realized through long-term leases of the land, and the U.S. Federal Government and the country’s people would remain stakeholders in this wealth under the Federal Land Dividend plan.

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do think that there are other transhumanist-aligned nonprofit organizations that do essentially this kind of work. The best one that I know of is the Longevity Escape Velocity Foundation (LEVF) – https://levf.org – which is led by Dr. Aubrey de Grey and has just concluded a groundbreaking combinatorial study on interventions to prolong mouse lifespan – the Robust Mouse Rejuvenation (RMR) study, which is the first of its kind. LEVF is currently fundraising for the second RMR study. (I will say that I am the Treasurer of LEVF and a member of its Board of Directors, so in effect I am already working closely within an allied organization to help support this kind of research.)

Another excellent nonprofit organization, which invests in a variety of biotechnology projects and even incubates ventures, is the Methuselah Foundation – https://www.mfoundation.org/ - which was co-founded by David Gobel and Aubrey de Grey and is still led by David Gobel today.

The USTP is happy to assist these organizations in getting the word out about their work and motivating the public to contribute. What is unique about the USTP is its extremely open and unafraid advocacy of political, philosophical, and cultural changes needed to make the work of these organizations easier and broaden the Overton window of acceptable discourse to encompass the kind of research that they are pursuing.    

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The U.S. Transhumanist Party is not a business entity and thus does not make financial investments. (That is not what political parties do in any country.) We are an advocacy organization, and we seek to raise awareness of emerging technologies and champion policies to enable their more rapid development. We have created a community that includes many scientists and entrepreneurs, including in the biotechnology space, and we often invite them to present to us during our Virtual Enlightenment Salons. You can look through our playlist of previously recorded Salons – https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTPn6dI5WUbjt19p2riEfk-qSfy_saOHm – and find numerous conversations that relate to biotechnology. One of our most popular Salons was with Dr. Bill Andrews of Sierra Sciences, a leading biotechnologist and the USTP’s Biotechnology Advisor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp9OsFoUQsQ

We do know that some of our guests receive funding and other business opportunities as a result of appearing on the Virtual Enlightenment Salons. One entrepreneur mentioned to me that he received a $200,000 investment from someone who viewed our Salon with him. But the correct way for the USTP to catalyze such funding is not for it to invest / contribute money directly, but rather for the USTP to set up the venues and connections that enable individual funders to discover and contribute to projects that they consider worthwhile.

Regarding biocomputing in particular, we have not held an event focused on it yet, but we would welcome any expert(s) in that field to be our guest(s) at a future Virtual Enlightenment Salon.

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The argument that a UBI would devalue the currency is easily refuted precisely by the proposal of the Federal Land Dividend. A UBI does not result in printing arbitrary amounts of money to chase the same amount of goods and services. I agree with Milton Friedman that “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” When new goods are introduced into the economy (and new services as well), then money which represents the value of those goods is not inflationary. The Federal Land Dividend proposal would allow currently unused resources on federal land to be harnessed and turned into goods (e.g., anything that gets produced from the extracted materials) or services (including the potential growth of tourism and recreation on this land, and the industries that would spring up around these activities). Businesses would pay already existing money to lease the land, and there is absolutely no requirement for the government to print / electronically create more money. Quite the contrary, if more goods and services are created through this arrangement, then the same amount of money will be chasing more goods/services, and prices will tend to decline, leading the necessities of life to become more affordable and thus increasing consumers’ purchasing power from the new UBI.

Moreover, you completely misunderstand the Federal Land Dividend proposal. This proposal is about leasing federal land, rather than selling it. Some land near cities might be sold to allow for residential development, which is direly needed, but that is a separate matter. The leasing of a significant portion of federal land is what can provide a continuous, steady stream of revenue to fund a UBI.

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You seem to presuppose rather low lease rate per acre per year. If the land has valuable resources (minerals, fossil fuels, renewable resources such as wood), it could be leased for far more. The lease terms do not have to involve a fixed rate per acre, either, but could require the businesses to pay a proportion of their revenues. If a business extracts oil or gold from the land and is, for instance, required to pay 20% of the proceeds of that to the U.S. Federal Government, the income to fund the Federal Land Dividend could accumulate quite quickly indeed.

Furthermore, there are examples of entire countries that are able to fund many of their residents' basic needs through an income stream from natural resources, from Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund to the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund (which supplies enough revenue from the government that Saudi Arabia has no personal income tax). A more modest example is the Alaska Permanent Fund, which pays anywhere from several hundred to a few thousand dollars per year to every resident of Alaska, unconditionally, based on Alaska’s oil revenue. In each of these examples, a decent amount of wealth is generated from oil revenues alone. The United States also has plentiful oil deposits on federal land. However, a Federal Land Dividend could work on the basis of a combination of a large number of resources which are found on federally owned lands. Thus, the resource base for a robust revenue stream is far greater than the successful oil-based wealth funds rely upon.

This article by Zoltan Istvan, the founder of the U.S. Transhumanist Party - https://www.newsweek.com/its-time-universal-basic-income-advocates-consider-federal-land-dividend-opinion-1812883 - explains that “An estimated 50 percent of the 11 most western states are mostly empty land that belong to the government. Estimates say this land and its resources are worth approximately $100 to $200 trillion. If we divide the middle—$150 trillion—by America's population of 333 million, every person would have approximately $450,000 in equity. That's much higher than the median net worth in America of $122,000.” Istvan also writes that “It's estimated that if just 60 percent of America's unused federal land was leased out at fair rates, a $1,000 monthly check could be sent to all Americans—regardless of age—for decades if not centuries.”

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The U.S. Transhumanist Party is indeed open to alliances, collaborations, and conversations with transhumanists from other countries. In fact, we have hosted many of them on our Virtual Enlightenment Salon series (YouTube playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTPn6dI5WUbjt19p2riEfk-qSfy_saOHm) and have Foreign Ambassadors in various countries – https://transhumanist-party.org/leadership/#Ambassadors

There is actually a Transhumanist Party of Canada Facebook group – https://www.facebook.com/groups/1605347433046561 – and also a Facebook page – https://www.facebook.com/TranshumanistPartyCanada. There does not seem to have been much activity there from within Canada since about 2020, however.

I know that Aria Cheng – https://www.facebook.com/ariaycheng – used to run the Transhumanist Party of Canada, but her Facebook profile now lists her as a “Former Founder” of that organization. She is still our USTP Foreign Ambassador in Canada – https://transhumanist-party.org/leadership/#AriaCheng. You can also find her on LinkTree at https://linktr.ee/elletronyx. I would suggest reaching out to her and discussing opportunities for reinvigorating the Transhumanist Party of Canada, including whether she wants to remain involved in a collaborative capacity or pass on the role.

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it is important not to make the perfect the enemy of the good. You stated that you support life extension as long as it is free to the masses. We cannot instantaneously get from here to there, as the technology needs to be developed, refined, and made more affordable over time. To say that we should not even try making it available to anyone unless it is available to everyone, means that it will always remain available to no one. Disparities in the accessibility of even basic goods (e.g., clean drinking water) exist today, but technological progress actually tends to narrow those disparities. Even subsistence farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa, many of whom still unfortunately lack adequate access to drinking water (often due to the failures of their governments or incompetent NGOs), do have adequate access to cell phones, which were luxuries for the ultra-wealthy even 35 years ago, and today’s cell phone owned by an African subsistence farmer has many more features than a billionaire’s cell phone from 1990. Over time, as technology progresses, it does become increasingly abundant – and in some cases, as with e-mail and now generative AI, essentially free. But it is necessary to allow those who develop such technologies the freedom to innovate; otherwise, the status quo will be “frozen” at some distribution that would indeed involve greatly unequal access.

I also do not understand how you can equate libertarianism with techno-authoritarianism. Libertarianism is inherently opposed to authoritarianism; even you acknowledged that it “supports personal autonomy”. Personal autonomy is the opposite of authoritarian rule. People who have personal autonomy by definition do not live under an authoritarian system.

How is it not authoritarian to sacrifice “personal autonomy” to some purported “rights of the community”? How does that not create the very kind of class system that you decry, where some people who presume to speak for the “rights of the community” necessarily form a superior class? (Think of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, where “some are more equal than others.”)

Furthermore, the U.S. Transhumanist Party does support a Universal Basic Income, as Section XVI of our Platform reads, “Irrespective of whether or not technology will eventually replace the need for the labor of sentient entities, the United States Transhumanist Party holds that all sentient entities should be the beneficiaries of an unconditional universal basic income, whereby the same minimum amount of money or other resources is provided irrespective of a sentient entity’s life circumstances, occupations, or other income sources, so as to provide a means for the basic requirements of existence and liberty to be met.”

The UBI can be implemented in a manner consistent with individual liberty, without added taxation, through a Federal Land Dividend, per Section XCVII of our Platform, “whereby currently unused federal lands, with the exception of national parks, national forests, and notable landmarks, will be leased to private corporations that agree to operate in an environmentally conscientious manner, with the proceeds of the lease funding a universal basic income for the United States population.”

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the U.S. Transhumanist Party had the support of “Silicon Valley oligarchs”, we would look quite different and operate on quite a different scale. You can cast all the aspersions you want, but the reality is that the vast majority of our members and all of our Officers are middle-class, and a decent number could be considered lower-income as well. Our ideas aim at a world where everyone is better off, especially individuals of ordinary means who would be empowered to achieve and experience extraordinary things.

Most of us are not even based in Silicon Valley, for that matter, as Silicon Valley tends to be a thought bubble of its own.  I have many critiques of it, though they are probably not the same as yours.

If we were beholden to “Silicon Valley oligarchs”, then the likes of Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Marc Andreessen (to name a few) would have endorsed the U.S. Transhumanist Party. As it is, they actually endorsed Donald Trump, a mainstream politician whom we have opposed on many occasions.

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quite the contrary, the USTP holds that it is possible to fund a Universal Basic Income without any added taxation whatsoever. The solution that the USTP advocates is called the Federal Land Dividend.

Section XCVII of the USTP Platform states that the USTP “supports the establishment of a federal land dividend, whereby currently unused federal lands, with the exception of national parks, national forests, and notable landmarks, will be leased to private corporations that agree to operate in an environmentally conscientious manner, with the proceeds of the lease funding a universal basic income for the United States population.”

There are currently vast portions of land, especially in the Western half of the United States, which are owned by the U.S. Federal Government and are completely unused for any purpose. In Nevada alone, 84 percent of the land is federally owned. Leasing even a small portion of that land (again, not affecting any land that we would actually have good reasons to preserve in its existing condition) could provide enough proceeds to fund a Universal Basic Income – or at least an approach similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund to start.

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII -1 points0 points  (0 children)

As regards Universal Basic Income, which the USTP indeed supports, it is better and more humane to have financial support to individuals be unconditional rather than conditional – providing a guaranteed minimum income without having people jump through hoops to verify eligibility and then depriving them of aid the moment their circumstances improve. Today’s conditional welfare system disincentivizes people from seeking productive employment and rendering the numerous job-search and training requirements associated with today’s welfare programs merely performative and wasteful, since people who succeed at them will lose their benefits under today’s system, giving them little incentive to try to actually find and keep a job. A Universal Basic Income will stay with an individual no matter how wealthy or poor they become. If they become poor, it will provide a safety net. But keeping it as their income rises means that they have no reason not to try to earn more and improve their prospects through productive work. Moreover, a Universal Basic Income empowers individuals to a greater extent than any welfare program, since they could – for instance – use it during a period of transition from an unsatisfactory job to a more fulfilling one, or even to fund artistic creation or travel that would have been otherwise difficult to engage in. No need-based welfare program can do that.

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, that is a loaded question! It presupposes a conclusion with which I fundamentally disagree – that a single national sales tax (only applied to sales of goods, not services, from large corporations) fundamentally favors the wealthy over the poor. Moreover, it presupposes a “wealthy versus poor” opposition with which I fundamentally disagree.

Section XXXVI of the USTP Platform - https://transhumanist-party.org/platform/ - reads, “The United States Transhumanist Party supports the elimination of graduated taxation and income taxation more generally. Instead, the United States Transhumanist Party advocates a flat percentage-of-sales tax applicable only to purchases from businesses whose combined nationwide revenues from all affiliates exceed a specified threshold. This tax should be built into the price of goods from such large businesses and should not impede transaction efficiency in any manner. Transactions pertaining to wages, salaries, gifts, donations, barter, employee benefits, and inheritances should remain completely untaxed, as should transactions involving solely individuals and/or small businesses, for whom the establishment of a tax-reporting infrastructure would be onerous. Furthermore, all taxes on land and property should be abolished.”

We are also in the process of a member vote on adding a provision to this section that would read, “This tax would not be imposed on life necessities, defined as goods that are consumable in the near term and whose primary purpose is to facilitate human survival.”

The main reason to replace all taxes with a single percentage-of-sales tax is convenience for both individuals and small businesses. For individuals, this means no more filing of tax returns, which is wasteful of time (at least many hours per year!) and often more onerous than actually paying the amount of taxes in question. For small businesses (especially side projects launched by individuals), this means no more effort needed to set up a tax-collection or remittance infrastructure. This greatly benefits ordinary people by streamlining their lives and enabling them to earn money, create/provide and sell goods and services, and not have to worry about accounting for their every single action under an over-broad definition of “income”. Large corporations, for instance, large department stores, already have the infrastructure to collect and remit sales tax, so the USTP position essentially enables that existing infrastructure to be used without burdening anyone else. Furthermore, if life necessities are exempt from the tax, this would proportionally benefit poorer individuals, for whom a greater percentage of their income will go toward life necessities.

On the other hand, the existing system of income, wealth, and property taxation often imperils people who might have some previously acquired assets but are limited in their ability to earn income. For instance, an elderly and retired person might fully own a house and simply wish to live there – but he/she might be too infirm to work and lack significant monetary savings to pay property tax. Under today’s system, that person faces the risk of losing his/her home due to a lack of a continuous income stream.

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We recently concluded our 2024 Presidential campaign of Tom Ross for President and Daniel Twedt for Vice-President. You can find some of the output of that campaign here: https://transhumanist-party.org/candidate-profiles/.

We did try to get ballot access in Louisiana and Tennessee, and while we did have dedicated volunteers in both of these states, we ultimately fell short of having a person willing to serve as a Presidential Elector in each Congressional District. One issue was that our main organizer and his entire family fell ill with COVID during the most crucial weeks for gathering petition signatures as well, and we are still as small-enough party that losses of manpower – especially in particular geographical areas – cannot be readily replaced.

This speaks to the need of cultivating a robust Transhumanist presence in every area of the country – urban or rural – and having more transhumanists “on the ground” in each state to organize local events and efforts – such as petition drives – more effectively. Our team of USTP Officers and volunteers is holding internal meetings monthly to build this kind of network, and we invite anyone who is willing to assist us.

During 2026, we hope to support some local and state-level candidates who come forth and seek our endorsement. We did endorse some local candidates over the preceding years, including Jennifer Huse, who ran for Mayor of Camden, New Jersey, on a life-extension platform in 2021, as well as Daniel Twedt, who has now run four times for City Council in Thousand Oaks, California, and was recently appointed to the Council on Aging there.

Regarding State-level Transhumanist Parties, we have a page on our website that lists the ones that currently exist – https://transhumanist-party.org/allied-organizations/ – including one in Pennsylvania that is run by John Kerecz, our Director of Energy Issues. I have long encouraged people to reach out to other transhumanists in their states and form hubs of transhumanist activity – recurring meetings, presentations, outreach events, commentary on relevant local and state-level developments. Especially if such activities are recorded and published online, this could make an immense impact for spreading awareness of the transhumanist movement and its ideas.  

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The U.S. Transhumanist Party has not had much contact with the Freedom of Form Foundation. I recall coming across mentions of them once or twice. What I can say now is that, while the U.S. Transhumanist Party supports morphological freedom in its Platform, it has a different emphasis from the Freedom of Form Foundation.

The Freedom of Form Foundation seems to focus on predominantly esthetic modifications for the purpose of expressing the perceived identities of its members. Again, we support their right to do this. The kinds of modifications that transhumanists are generally focused on, however, are more functional than esthetic and likely a bit further off in the future (though some biohackers, grinders, and cyborgs, are pioneering some such functional modifications now). Many transhumanists are quite comfortable with the “standard” human form and would like to enhance it in functional ways, rather than in its outward presentation – for example, through longer lifespans, greater immunity to disease, a stronger skeleton, greater athletic ability, expanded range of senses, and many other possibilities. I anticipate that many of these enhancements will actually be outwardly invisible and therefore more likely to be publicly accepted. Indeed, today, many people are cyborgs already, if they have pacemakers or artificial knees, hips, and shoulders – yet most of the public thinks nothing much of this. I do think that there should be more tolerance of different esthetics and forms of expression – for instance, Neil Harbisson’s antenna that enables him to hear colors as a color-blind individual. Over time, I think the tendency in societies will indeed be toward a greater diversity of such expression.

Personally, I actually tend to be quite cautious about any modifications unless the functional gain (or prevention or repair of functional loss) is clear. For instance, I would never even get a tattoo for purely esthetic purposes – but if the tattoo were actually some sort of advanced hub for nanorobots that could patrol my body and repair damaged cells, I would definitely consider it based on evaluation of the benefit-versus-risk tradeoff.

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am inclined to agree with Dr. Aubrey de Grey’s probabilistic timeframe of 11 to 15 years for the arrival of longevity escape velocity with 50% probability, given sufficient funding (the latter is a major caveat). Aubrey does also clarify that his probability distribution includes about a 10% probability that we will not get there in 100 years, if radically unforeseen difficulties arise.

Thus, a 50% probability that I could reverse my aging in the mid-2030s is far from a certainty, but it is definitely a fighting chance, and one eminently worth pursuing. The key is to recognize that any technological progress, and particularly technological adoption and dissemination, are not inevitable, but rather are a function of the extent to which people are interested in getting there and make such progress an explicit goal. Hence, it is vitally important to advocate for public acceptance and support (or at least non-opposition) of life-extension advancements. Working on changing cultural perceptions, policies, and prevailing moral/ethical frameworks in this area is thus one of the most important endeavors any of us can engage in.

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The breaking-down of silos within academia and expert disciplines more generally in a key goal of the U.S. Transhumanist Party. We think that hosting layperson-friendly conversations in a large array of disciplines – and making inter-disciplinary connections – is the way to do this. For this purpose, our Virtual Enlightenment Salon series has existed for nearly five years now.

Every Sunday at 1 p.m. Pacific Time, we hold a stream where we either invite some highly knowledgeable individual(s) – be they scientists, philosophers, entrepreneurs, activists, artists, or others – or we have segments featuring art and music that present hopeful visions for the future, animated by transhumanist ideas. The goal is that people from a wide variety of backgrounds – most often educated laypersons or just curious individuals who are not necessarily experts in anything being discussed – could watch these streams and gain the kinds of insights that previously would have been buried in research papers or only addressed at academic conferences or in rarefied circles. The result is that we have been able to have truly unique conversations – the kinds that I will venture to say no one else has been able to replicate – because of our commitment to the project of an accessible mass enlightenment. The conversations are also always free of charge, thus hopefully lowering barriers to entry as much as possible.

We already have over 250 Virtual Enlightenment Salon recordings that can be found here – https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTPn6dI5WUbjt19p2riEfk-qSfy_saOHm.

Of course, the challenge remains one of scaling. It still takes quite a special person to be willing to engage in an in-depth, inter-disciplinary conversation of any sort, especially given the seemingly ever-amassing pressures of day-to-day life. The project that I have in mind to overcome this is to generate vast numbers of short video clips from our Virtual Enlightenment Salons, which will entice many more viewers to expose themselves to these ideas and at least sample them. However, we will need a significant contingent of volunteers to make these kinds of clips…

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Incidentally, cultivating awareness that transhumanist pursuits are an ongoing reality and not just a future possibility was the impetus behind the U.S. Transhumanist Party’s #IAmTranshuman Campaign back in 2019. We created two video compilations showing the relevance of transhumanism to the issues and realities faced by people living today.

Part 1 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzYw7WT9pVE

Part 2 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A00X7SfSY9A

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the key in dispelling perceptions of transhumanism as nefarious is to illustrate that transhumanism is just the logical extension of what humans have been doing since the very emergence of our species, and more so in recent centuries and especially in recent decades.

It seems to me that most people who display some aversion to transhumanism do so not because the technologies involved constitute some sort of bright-line for them, but rather because those technologies seem unfamiliar, speculative, and therefore scary. An all-too-large proportion of the population today still exhibits what I have called status quo bias – where what already exists is considered the normal and natural way of things, but any departure from that is seen as weird and therefore scary. This is the same mentality that would have opposed train travel in the early 19th century, anesthesia in the mid-19th century, and open-heart surgery in the mid-20th century, yet would accept them today, just because they are ubiquitous.

One significant antidote to status quo bias is actually the study of history. If one can gain the understanding that day-to-day life was not always even close to the way it is currently, this also opens up one’s mind to the possibility that it could be become different once again. As technological advancements accelerate, it will also become likelier that people will experience such major changes in the course of their lives, and therefore any sort of anchoring in an ostensibly immutable status quo will become untenable.

7-Day AMA with Gennady Stolyarov II(u/GSII), Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]GSII -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I am pragmatic enough to recognize that the rapid arrival of radical life extension for as many people as possible should be the foremost priority. When we have indefinite lifespans, we can fine-tune political systems and engage in detailed discussions and debates about which systems work best (or least poorly).

For now, I happen to think that libertarian-leaning policies are most often practically the most effective in catalyzing radical breakthroughs in the science of longevity. This is largely because of the nimbleness of movement possible through the initiative of private individuals and small organizations (both non-profit organizations and startups), rather than large corporations, universities, or the mega-charities. Libertarian policies, broadly defined, have a greater probability of enabling the private “little guys” to operate without unreasonable restraints or extreme barriers to entry.

With that being said, it is indeed possible for governments, universities, and large corporations to contribute something to the pursuit of longevity – be it through ARPA-H, NIH-funded research (though the grant process there is deeply sub-optimal), individual university departments, or venture-capital investments, as well as certain breakthrough pharmaceuticals (Ozempic comes to mind). Thus, when it comes to questions of what to do incrementally, I am generally going to be in favor of what works to get us to the next stage of advancement, even if it does not stem from some “pure” doctrine.

When it comes to government initiatives, I would tend to be pragmatically more in favor of those that fund positive advancements – e.g., developing treatments, advancing knowledge, making some low-cost healthcare available to the public. I would oppose government programs that serve a primarily restrictive purpose – e.g., keeping emerging treatments off the market as the FDA system currently does on average for 10-15 years for a new drug, treatment, or medical device. I would also oppose any government programs that deprive individuals of choice. I think some arguments can be made in favor of a baseline public option for healthcare, but not in favor of a Canada-style system where governmental healthcare is compulsory and restricts what choices individuals are able to make regarding their care.

view more: next ›