Listen to the complete Piano Sonata No. 3 in G minor, “Death is Wrong”, by Adriano G. Santos on YouTube here. The YouTube video also contains the complete score for the sonata.
Program Notes
Piano Sonata No. 3 in G minor
“Death is Wrong”
Composer: Adriano G. Santos
Inspired by the book Death is Wrong, written by Gennady Stolyarov II
This piano composition was completed on December 26, 2025, and was conceived as a programmatic work inspired by the book Death is Wrong, written by Gennady Stolyarov II.
When I started reading the book I felt so identified with some of the contents due to special circumstances I was facing at that time, like the extreme frustration I have always had towards the senescence of piano playing from a physical perspective, and my mother’s tragic femur rupture.
As I was reading the book, very strong musical desires of composing came to my mind and heart, and I almost immediately felt the need to create a new work of programmatic nature based on the contents of this book.
The composition structure is based on the sonata form. The music starts on page 4 from the book, when Gennady asks his mother, “But why do people die? Do they do anything bad to deserve it?” (1), and his mother answers with a perfectly understandable constant justification of human mortality.
The introduction of the sonata tries to mirror this with a dialogue in A major (V/V) between 2 motivic cells in which the first one is made of an eighth-note, 6 quarter-notes organized in triplets asking questions regarding the existence of death, and a question mark represented as a half-note (Fig. A).
The second motif consisting of eight notes alternated with 16th notes answer this question justifying human mortality (Fig. B).
This same dialogue is transposed to the dominant and tonic keys (V/I).
Motifs illustrated in Figures A and B came to my mind almost arbitrarily while composing the introduction, but after a short analysis of different masterpieces, Alkan’s Scherzo Diabolico knocked at my door, and I realized that, very conveniently, the first four notes are a fragmented diminution of my original motif that started the musical dialogue questioning human mortality.
I made a variation of the beginning motifs of the Alkan Etude (Fig. 1), and I used this to express the following statement from Stolyarov’s book: “It is wrong!” I exclaimed. “People should not die!” (2) (Fig. 1.1).
The purposefully forward motion filled with an anxious and passionate emergency of the Alkan Etude, Opus 39, Number 3 in G minor, was ideal for the main theme of my sonata, which I titled, “Deeply and passionately attached to eternal life”.
Unfortunately, as of today, life extension within the context of human eternal life could be perceived as “unfulfilled love”, and a perfect example of this is Beethoven, whose music is often marked by ambiguity and unrequited love, due partially to his relationships, disappointment, suffering, and deafness. Interestingly, I felt a strong call to go through the first movement of his E minor Sonata, Op. 90, and when I reached the secondary theme in B minor, I could sense a painful yearning for fulfillment in those recurrent minor seconds (G/F#), and I immediately knew that my main theme needed that same persistent interval.
In the illustration above in Fig. C, Alkan’s rhythmic and technical patterns give a sense of urgency and anxiety to the desire of fulfillment.
The secondary theme in E-flat major addresses specific lines from Stolyarov’s book. The motivic cells are a fragmentation of the main theme, and the overall idea of the initial fragmented motif of the first 8 measures (mm. 109-116) is based on two crucial questions from the book on page 18: “What could you do if you could live for hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of years? What could you do if you could live even longer than that?”
When the motif suffers another fragmentation in measures 117-128, the music is answering the 2 questions aforementioned by emphasizing the benefits of life extension addressed in the book: “You could read many of the greatest books ever written, you could become a great composer, you could live to see the most amazing scientific and technological wonders…”
In measures 129-133, the original fragmented motif comes back as a desire to fulfill those possibilities through life extension.
As the music becomes denser through transposition, secondary dominants, diminished harmonies, and modulations, the composition is trying to express advice and danger warnings: “The younger you apply this, the more chances you will have to defeat death” and “Be careful of the different dangers that empower senescence and death.”
The Development begins with a motif derived from the original question at the beginning of the introduction, only this time the cell is broader and there is no longer a question of “Why do we have to die?” but a deep thinking of the possibility that “Death is Wrong.”
As the Development progresses, this possibility becomes stronger and more definitive (mm. 176-224).
From measures 200-215, music advances chromatically, and by every half-step a new discovery, experiment, or theory about the most promising scientific efforts of our time enriches life-extension possibilities.
Constant chromatic evolution gives a sensation of confidence and power that results ideal in trying to reflect musically the achievements of experiments with small animals like mice, the fact of the existence of huge lifespans in lobsters, the potential of medical therapies to reverse biological aging in humans from Dr. Aubrey de Grey (3), and other scientific breakthroughs (Fig. H1).
The motif can be expressed into lyrics to make the idea more approachable as in Fig. H2, where you can see only the top notes of the same motifs.
After this chain of chromatic events, an octave virtuosic section derived from the 2nd warning in Fig. H, takes place and represents the struggle against death, senescence, diseases, accidents, natural disasters, and sheep-like mentality (mm. 225-309).
This intense and ferocious section not only develops the second warning of the exposition ending but also goes into a deeper and more powerful chromatic evolution.
The closing section is greatly influenced by Liszt’s B minor Ballade, where the development seems to come to an end, and a sequence of broken octaves brings back the fire leading to a climatic point. In my sonata, when the repeated D quarter-notes die away, suddenly, an identical sequence of E-flat quarter notes brings back the final part of the development, as if the phoenix were rising from the ashes. This continuation in E-flat is a small musical symbol that represents “Musical Life Extension” (Fig. H3).
As the development ending gradually reaches greater intensity, the main motivic cells of the exposition are battling for supremacy as tension is built throughout fifty-eight measures (mm. 354-412), full of energy and yearning.
The recapitulation takes place as the highest climatic point where the main theme is disguised as “development”. Technical virtuosic patterns from Liszt’s Paganini and Transcendental Etudes are ideal for expressing one of the most powerful possibilities I’ve ever read in a book: “Maybe the person who will conquer death… is you.”
During my learning process of some of the hardest piano works by Liszt, I really felt that I was climbing a mountain, and that’s what I tried to mirror in this climatic passage (Fig. H4 & H5). Thus, I believe that humanity has the privilege of living in a present era that is at a considerable height on the mountain of the conquest of death.
The secondary theme opens with a follow-up question to the original in the exposition, which was, “What could you do if you could live for thousands of years or even longer?”
In the recapitulation we no longer have a personal question that answers with dreams and desires, but a follow-up one about the world and humanity in general: “What would happen if this is achieved in human beings?”
New dreams would arise in the human need and creativity for new ramifications of life extension that could result in an even more fulfilling eternal life.
This evolution can go from quantifying and manipulating dopamine levels in humans, biomarkers at their final peak through superb innovations of data analytics, multi-omics, and digital health, to even more astonishing possibilities that are considered today science fiction, like past-time travel through the manipulation of gravity and rotation of wormholes. Imagine saving a loved one from dying in the past, or even sharing life-extension benefits with great minds like Einstein, Beethoven, Shakespeare, and many others.
In the bridge that connects to the Coda (mm. 499-532), the music becomes more chromatic and rotatory, trying to create a transcendental effect that pushes the momentum forward towards the Coda.
The Coda section arrives trying to express that the need for eternal life is no longer only a strong desire but a passionate fulfilling encounter that is enriched by life-extension ramifications mentioned in Theme B.
After such a heartfelt outburst of measures 533-579, the motto perpetuo of D quarter-notes from the development comes back in an even more mysterious output on measures 580-627 and followed by another symbolic “extension”.
The main theme takes a gradually strong and determining lead that finishes the work with a very convenient influence of Liszt’s Funérailles ending that releases a triumphant and solemn return of the secondary theme (mm. 628-688).
On May 25, 2025, Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II presented at the Vitalist Bay Longevity Policy Conference on behalf of the U.S. Transhumanist Party about why explicitly Transhumanist politics is necessary for the movement for radical life extension to become more widely embraced. This presentation encapsulates Chairman Stolyarov’s most current thinking about where advocates of radical life extension can most effectively make a difference politically. It also provides his theory of change – how a persistent core (such as what he intends for the U.S. Transhumanist Party to become) can facilitate steady progress toward the goal without risking derailment by the all-too-common pressures – both internal and external – that cause most organizations to perform sub-optimally or even ruin them altogether.
On January 5, 2019, I spoke with my grandfather, Gennady Stolyarov I (1933-2025), who was one of the pioneering developers of computers in the Soviet Union, regarding his thoughts about how technology and the manner in which we interact with information have evolved during his lifetime and his anticipations about the future. At the time, when he was already 85 years old, he anticipated technology that would directly read human thoughts, advances in artificial intelligence, and even AI personal assistants, as well as using AIs to compose music and develop new inventions.
The discussion was originally conducted in Russian and translated into English by me.
~ Gennady Stolyarov II, January 27, 2025
Conversation of January 5, 2019
Gennady Stolyarov II (GSII): What is the primary difference between how people relate to information now as compared to the mid-20th century?
Gennady Stolyarov I (GSI): On the Internet today there is a far greater volume of content; it is incomparable with what one would have been able to find in books alone.
GSII: So this gives rise to an interesting question: how to increase the capacity of the human brain to absorb all of this information – since there is so much more information, but our brains remain the same?
GSI: I think that it will become possible to simply read thoughts directly and also to direct ideas into the mind. It is clear that the speed of work of which a computer is capable is incomparable to that of your mind. Therefore, systems will be developed so that, instead of spending so much time pressing buttons, one could analyze the electrical signals of the brain and search accordingly, forming an impression of what one wants to find. The mind already somehow formulates the goal of the search; it should be possible to improve the interface between the mind and the computer so that the computer perceives that goal clearly.
GSII: Even today, it is already the case that the information that one wishes to discover exists. For instance, on my mobile phone, it is possible to locate information on almost anything, but that information is not yet immediately accessible, in the sense that one must type something in, search for something – this is not always convenient.
GSI: Yes, exactly.
GSII: And furthermore, the human mind does not directly absorb the information; one must still read it and be capable of understanding the external content in some manner.
GSI: Yes.
GSII: I think that this is a barrier today, because there is a tremendous amount of information, including on science, current world events, history. It is possible to gather many facts, but the human brain is still as primitive as it has previously been.
GSI: Well, it is very difficult to call the brain “primitive”! After all, we still do not understand how it operates! But it would be possible relatively soon to develop this interface that I described for reading your mind in some manner regarding what you would like to search for. Even now there are attempts to access a person’s data – sometimes regrettably, as this may not coincide with a person’s wishes. However, the information that you access or generate can be restructured, regrouped. This could be a useful underprinning for later reorganizing information in accordance with your wishes and conceptions, into a form that is comfortable for you.
GSII: At present, there exist data about a person on various social networks. There is also information from businesses, from commercial transactions – and there is the question of who owns that information. My view is that individuals themselves should own their data and have the right to determine what happens to them – i.e., if anyone else uses that information, it should be with permission to use it for specified purposes.
GSI: It is necessary to develop an artificial intellect that would be capable of reasoning; right now, you are able to search by keywords – but this process should be simplified further, because it has become tedious to press keys on a keyboard; it consumes far too much time. But I think these improvements will arrive quickly enough. The artificial intellect will be able to sort data in accordance with your wishes and group the information it finds into useful categories. It will remember past queries that were made and related information. You might be making an inquiry about something, and you would see a semantic web of terms – showing you what else exists and suggest what you could search for next. For instance, there could be sidebars dedicated to this, and you would pose a query, and you would be asked if you would like a historical view of the matter – what existed previously, what exists now, what are the outlooks for the future; the system will find all this for you. Every step in this direction will substantially increase a person’s intellectual capabilities. This will be a highly interesting field to pursue, and in my view highly effective.
GSII: There are already algorithms which, if you are watching a video, will show you some related videos. Or you could be purchasing something on Amazon or browsing products there; you would be shown similar products.
In 2014 Google conducted its experiment with Google Glass – glasses with a computer display that showed various information – for instance, data about a place that a person was visiting – but this was a closed experiment for a small group of people that still paid over a thousand dollars to participate. Google did not sell Google Glass to the general public who were not signed up for the trial program, and when Google began its experiment, I think the people who did not have Google Glass were envious of those who did. Those who wore the glasses in public places experienced discrimination and complaints, and ultimately Google ended the trial. I think if Google had initially sold Google Glass products to everyone, then it would have been treated no differently from many other new technologies – for instance, mobile phones. Generally, people are not protesting against mobile phones.
GSI: This is true.
GSII: Was earlier technology – for instance, the large computers from the 1960s – more difficult to use compared to today?
GSI: No, the interface with the computer was far more primitive and quite simple to use. This is one of the reasons I think you are much better prepared than I am to interact with new technologies and devices. The interface will continue to be improved; it will present results informatively, work out associations, group and systematize data. This data processing is all work that you could do yourself, but the system will add value in that it could store far larger amounts of data and, based on the extent of progress in artificial intelligence, help you extract from the surrounding informational universe those parts in which you are interested. It would determine your profile; already the beginnings of this are occurring, as you are receiving automatically generated suggestions. And indeed the more sophisticated systems are already under development; improvements occur with every new operating system, and I often see various updates installing on my computer. I am actually a bit frustrated by this, because after the update is installed, one often has to learn to use the interface once again. I do not like that changes are constantly being introduced, and one needs to somehow adjust to them, and one completely lacks the eagerness to spend time on that.
GSII: Yes, but that will also happen with newer versions of operating systems that will replace existing ones entirely, such as Windows 10 replacing Windows 7 and Microsoft discontinuing support for Windows 7 in 2020.
GSI: This is a well-known contradiction [in regard to updates making a system more difficult to use because of the learning curve].
GSII: Now companies are frequently changing and updating their software, and I think it is easier when they update something that the user does not immediately see and use – such as a system file.
GSI: It is important for the user to have freedom from the involuntary introduction of changes to his systems. If he would like to use the new capabilities, there should be open access to them, but old functionalities should not be impacted.
GSII: Yes. What I dislike most about these updates is that the user interface is changed and previous options are sometimes removed. Perhaps it may be possible for technologies in the future to help humans better and more rapidly adapt to such changes.
More generally, if through some method, using electrical signals, it were possible to download information into a human brain – so that humans would gain the capability to process information from the Internet much more rapidly – in your mind would this improve the quality of human decisions and behaviors? Would humans at last become enlightened?
GSI: This can happen, but it will be necessary to study and comprehend the brain in greater depth. This is extremely important. Actually, in the future your conversational partner will need to be an artificial intellect. You will be interested in some specific kinds of artificial intelligence, in the sphere of your interests and endeavors. Possible applications are quite varied. For some people, the artificial intelligence could aid in composing music. For others, it could help them track down criminals. For others still, it could help them create new inventions. The artificial intellects will be able to connect, analyze information, prepare data for use, systematize materials that you have gathered, This will be a personalized approach; the computer will, as this field progresses, become increasingly specialized toward fulfilling your needs.
GSII: So in essence these will be personal assistants in the form of artificial intelligences.
GSI: Yes.
GSII: What will happen to the interactions between people? What will happen if every person has an artificially intelligent assistant with access to facts and the ability to analyze them?
GSI: Then the artificial intelligences will establish their own network with the AI assistants of your colleagues. They will process information jointly and also present the results of your reasoning to others.
GSII: It is an interesting idea, that if people have these assistants, the assistants will communicate with one another as well – not just with people directly. This is similar to what secretaries of people in leadership positions might have done in the past, before the actual leaders would communicate with one another.
GSI: Also relevant to the topic of the conversation is a television documentary I saw recently, which showed that there already exist programs to create a simulated environment for a patient – for instance, in response to an injury to the nervous system, it is possible to create some kind of illusory world in which the patient could act and develop some sorts of skills. They also showed some interesting images [of the simulated environments] – so all this is also from that sphere of activity.
GSII: Yes, virtual reality is used for medical applications currently.
GSI: Yes, but the most important thing is that the technology that they are applying also follows the general idea that we discussed. The psychologists and neurologists working on this technology are developing an artificial reality. This is from the same repertoire of approaches.
GSII: Yes, today it is possible for several hundred dollars to purchase glasses to visit virtual spaces. There are games, educational applications, various virtual worlds. Of course, they will need to be developed further and made more accessible to the majority of people. The technology is still not ideal, but something can already be accomplished.
Pictured here are several of Gennady Stolyarov I’s main medals, most prominently the Charles Babbage Medal for the IEEE Computer Pioneer Award, which he received during his visit to Boston in November 2002. Also pictured here are medals that depict Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Yuri Gagarin.
U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party Positions on 2024 Nevada Ballot Questions
Nevada State Question 1 – Remove Constitutional Status of Board of Regents Amendment
Wording of Question: “Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to remove certain provisions governing the Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education and its administration of the State University and certain federal land grant funds and to provide additional legislative oversight of public institutions of higher education through regular independent audits, without repealing the current statutory election process or other existing statutory provisions relating to the Board of Regents?” (More information on BallotPedia.)
Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party are generally neutral as to the structure of oversight over educational institutions and so do not take a strong position as to whether Nevada universities are overseen by a separately elected Board of Regents or directly by the Legislature. Furthermore, Ballot Question 1 would not actually dissolve the Board of Regents, but rather would place it under the oversight of the Legislature instead of its powers being provided for in the Nevada Constitution. Therefore, the day-to-day governance of Nevada’s State-funded higher-education institutions may not be changed in significant ways.
BallotPedia notes that “An amendment to remove the constitutional status of the Board of Regents was also on the 2020 ballot in Nevada. Voters defeated this amendment by 50.15%-49.85%.”
The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party were similarly neutral on Ballot Question 1 in 2020. There was a favorable component of the 2020 Ballot Question 1, which is absent from the 2024 Ballot Question 1, and which would have mandated for the Legislature to provide by law for “the reasonable protection of individual academic freedom at Nevada’s public higher education institutions” –. The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party are supportive of strengthening protections for individual academic freedom and regret that the current iteration of Ballot Question 1 did not preserve that aspect. The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party do see some potential risks of politicization of higher education that may arise from Ballot Question 1 if a Legislature interferes directly in overseeing the content taught or the manner of individual expression permitted on a university campus, without specific protections for individual academic freedom being provided for by law.
However, the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party would generally consider the issues involved in the structure of university governance to be outside the purview of specifically transhumanist political advocacy. Therefore, members are encouraged to vote their conscience on this ballot question by consulting their own individual understandings of the relevant matters.
Nevada State Question 2 – Revising Language Related to Public Entities for Individuals with Mental Illness, Blindness, or Deafness Amendment
Wording of Question: “Shall Section 1 of Article 13 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to: (1) revise the description of the persons who benefit from institutions that the State is required to foster and support; (2) replace the term “institutions” with “entities”; and (3) add entities for the benefit of persons with intellectual or developmental disabilities to the types of entities that the State is required to foster and support?” (More information on BallotPedia.)
Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party are ultimately neutral on Ballot Question 2. Question 2 proposes to replace the current reference to “Institutions” with “Entities” and the current reference to benefiting “the Insane, Blind and Deaf and Dumb” with “persons with significant mental illness, persons who are blind or visually impaired, persons who are deaf or hard of hearing and persons with intellectual disabilities or developmental disabilities”. The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party do not take a strong position on revising language solely with the intention of appearing more sensitive, or avoiding terms that some might perceive to be offensive, although this should not be the sole motivation for a change, and Section XL of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform does oppose “the doctrine of censorship, now prevalent on many college campuses in the United States, in the name of […] avoiding subjectively perceived offense.” Wording revisions to a Constitution, however, are not in themselves censorship, in that the expression of any idea by anyone is not being forcibly suppressed, and there may instead be a genuine attempt to determine what superior, more accurate, or more generally palatable wording to describe a particular subject matter might be.
There is a more substantive possible aspect to Ballot Question 2, which ultimately addresses which institutions or entities the State of Nevada would be constitutionally obligated to support. For instance, not all “persons with significant mental illness” might fit under the older category of “the Insane”, and the category of “persons with intellectual disabilities or developmental disabilities” is a new addition, as such persons should not rightfully be referred to as “Insane” under any framework. Proponents of Ballot Question 2 may consider it worthwhile for the State of Nevada to provide financial support to entities treating individuals with intellectual disabilities or developmental disabilities. However, the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform and Transhumanist Bill of Rights – Version 3.0 ultimately do not take a position on whether such support should be governmentally provided. Article VII of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights – Version 3.0 states, “All sentient entities should be the beneficiaries of a system of universal health care. A system of universal health care does not necessitate any particular means, policy framework, source, or method of payment for delivering health care. A system of universal health care may be provided privately, by governments, or by some combination thereof, as long as, in practice, health care is abundant, inexpensive, accessible, and effective in curing diseases, healing injuries, and lengthening lifespans.” Therefore, it remains the decision of individual members of the U.S. and Nevada Transhumanist Parties regarding whether they would consider governmental support for treating individuals with intellectual disabilities or developmental disabilities to be the best means for overcoming those disabilities. It is possible for an individual member to agree with this, but it is also possible for another individual member to consider private institutions or individually motivated action to be more effective in overcoming at least some intellectual or developmental disabilities than State-funded institutions or entities might be.
Section XVIII of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform states that “The United States Transhumanist Party supports work to use science and technology to be able to eliminate all disabilities in humans who have them.” However, it is not clear whether any additional entities that would receive State support as a result of Ballot Question 2 would be focused on actually eliminating disabilities or only on helping people adapt to those disabilities. The latter may be a goal toward which some individual members of the U.S. and Nevada Transhumanist Parties may be sympathetic, but it is not a sufficiently or specifically transhumanist goal, nor is it one that the U.S. Transhumanist Party or Nevada Transhumanist Party take a position on – other than to express the hope that the individuals who are currently adapting to any disability will someday be freed from that disability through medical cures or technological augmentations that render the disability irrelevant to their day-to-day functioning.
Nevada State Question 3 – Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative
Wording of Question: “Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow all Nevada voters the right to participate in open primary elections to choose candidates for the general election in which all voters may then rank the remaining candidates by preference for the offices of U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Controller, Attorney General, and State Legislators?” (More information on BallotPedia.)
Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: In the view of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party, this is the single most important ballot measure in Nevada political history, as it has the potential to break the stranglehold of the duopoly on Nevada politics. Voters already approved Ballot Question 3 once in 2022, by a vote of 52.94% in favor. However, the Nevada Constitution requires any ballot measures that provide amendments to the Constitution to be passed by voters twice. This 2024 election is therefore decisive for Ballot Question 3, and the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party strongly encourage all Nevada residents who care about having genuine electoral choices to vote in support of Question 3.
The plurality of Nevada voters are independent of the major political parties, and yet they are currently unable to meaningfully influence many local races where a major-party primary determines that party’s nominee, who then receives no meaningful competition at the ballot box in the general election. Moreover, Nevada, as a “battleground” electoral state, often features great pressure applied on voters to support the “lesser evil”, despite many Nevada voters being rightly disillusioned with both the Republican and the Democratic “options” provided to them. Ranked-preference voting eliminates the incentive to vote strategically or for a “lesser evil” to the exclusion of one’s genuinely preferred candidate, since one can provide a complete rank-ordering of one’s preferences rather than limit oneself to one choice.
Section XXX of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform states that “The United States Transhumanist Party supports replacing the current ‘winner-take-all’ electoral system with proportional representation, ranked preference voting, and other devices to minimize the temptations by voters to favor a perceived ‘lesser evil’ rather than the candidates closest to those voters’ own preferences.” Thus, support for ranked-choice voting is directly embedded in our Platform. Furthermore, Section XIX of the USTP Platform reads, in part, “The United States Transhumanist Party supports an end to the two-party political system in the United States and a substantially greater inclusion of ‘third parties’ in the political process through mechanisms such as proportional representation and the elimination of stringent ballot-access requirements.” Allowing open access to primaries and enabling ranked-preference voting in the general election would certainly lower the barriers to entry to candidates who do not belong to either of the duopoly parties.
The U.S. Transhumanist Party has successfully implemented ranked-preference voting in multiple of its internal votes. There is every reason to expect that ranked-preference voting could be implemented with similar success for the much simpler top-five ballots in Nevada general elections that would be developed if Question 3 were to be approved by the voters (twice, the first time this year). The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party strongly encourage every Nevada voter to support Ballot Question 3.
The opponents of Ballot Question 3 have included both the Republican and Democratic Parties and various politically connected special-interest advocacy groups; this should be quite revealing about what these establishment factions find to be threatening to their power. A ranked-choice voting system would break the ability of these powerful interests to manipulate the public through “lesser evil” arguments; politicians, to receive serious consideration, would actually have to at least pretend to be for the greater good rather than merely a lesser evil!
An astonishing and disgraceful plethora of misrepresentations about Ballot Question 3 have been propagated by the opposing establishment interests:
· Opponents claim that ranked-choice voting would be confusing to voters – as if people do not intuitively know how to rank-order their options; to suggest this is to insult the intelligence of nearly voter!
· Opponents claim that people would be forced to rank-order multiple candidates, when the text of the proposed Constitutional amendment specifically would allow a voter to “mark as many choices as the voter wishes” (Article 15, Section 18, Paragraph 3).
· Opponents claim that ranked-choice voting would violate the principle of “one person, one vote”, when in fact every eligible voter would still cast one ballot and would have the option to rank-order as many candidates as that voter wishes – from as few as one to as many as five. If a voter only chooses to indicate one candidate, or any number fewer than five, that voter is not disenfranchised by that voluntary decision, just as a person who is eligible to vote but chooses not to vote is not disenfranchised by their own choice. No serious argument can be made that the principle of “one person, one vote” is violated just because some people choose not to vote. By extension, no serious argument can be made that this principle would be violated just because some people would choose to rank-order fewer than all of the candidates.
Nevada State Question 4 – Remove Slavery as Punishment for Crime from Constitution Amendment
Wording of Question: “Shall the Ordinance of the Nevada Constitution and the Nevada Constitution be amended to remove language authorizing the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as a criminal punishment?” (More information on BallotPedia.)
Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party support Ballot Question 4. The Transhumanist Bill of Rights – Version 3.0 states in Article XXV, “No sentient entity shall be held in slavery or involuntary servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.” There are no exceptions provided for the prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude in the Transhumanist Bill of Rights. Question 4 would align the Nevada State Constitution with the Transhumanist Bill of Rights.
It has been noted in the various explanations of this ballot question that it would not result in the abolition of prison work programs, which may, if administered properly, have benefits such as enabling prisoners to learn marketable skills and to have a path toward integration into peaceful and productive economic life upon their release from prison. However, the prohibition of involuntary servitude would mean that prisoners would have the prerogative to opt into those work programs, and that prison labor would not be used as punishment for an offense in and of itself. The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party would concur that prison work programs should be voluntary for the prisoners and should be offered as opportunities, not as punishments.
Nevada State Question 5 – Sales Tax Exemption for Diapers Measure
Wording of Question: “Shall the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 be amended to provide an exemption from the taxes imposed by this Act on the gross receipts from the sale and the storage, use or other consumption of diapers?” (More information on BallotPedia.)
Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: Section XXXVI of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform expresses support for “a flat percentage-of-sales tax applicable only to purchases from businesses whose combined nationwide revenues from all affiliates exceed a specified threshold.” The U.S. Transhumanist Party, in its most recent Exposure Period, considered an amendment to Section XXXVI, which would add the language, “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 Nevada Transhumanist Party already included this language on July 26, 2024, within Section V of the Nevada Transhumanist Party Platform.
Currently, the State of Nevada lacks an income tax and has a state sales tax, from which various goods considered to be necessities are excluded. Diapers can be considered to facilitate the survival, with a basic amount of dignity, of certain humans who need them. Based on the principle that the cost of necessities should be excluded from any manner of sales tax, which already appears to be reflected in Nevada law and in the Nevada Transhumanist Party Platform, and which also did not meet any opposition during the Exposure Period for Platform Vote #9, the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party support Ballot Question 5.
Nevada State Question 6 – Right to Abortion Initiative
Wording of Question: “Should the Nevada Constitution be amended to create an individual’s fundamental right to an abortion, without interference by state or local governments, whenever the abortion is performed by a qualified healthcare professional until fetal viability or when necessary to protect the health or life of the pregnant individual at any point during the pregnancy?” (More information on BallotPedia.)
Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party are intentionally and conscientiously neutral on the question of abortion, which is one of the most divisive and intractable issues in American politics today. Its intractability stems from the existence of an inherent conflict of rights, which cannot be resolved using contemporary technology.
Section LXXXIV of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform offers a potential future solution to this divisive issue in the form of ectogenesis, “the ability of organisms to be incubated and to grow to the point of independent survival, within an artificial environment that provides such organisms with all the necessities of biological survival and development.” Ectogenesis posses the promise of “alleviating the burdens of human pregnancy and rendering the divisive debate over abortion obsolete by reconciling the right to life of a fetus with the freedom of a woman to choose not to carry that fetus.”
However, ectogenesis for humans is not yet available. During the present time, abortion is being utilized to an escalating extent by both major political parties as a wedge issue designed, through the extreme responses to it from both sides, to polarize and divide the population over situations that are unlikely to affect most people personally. It is for this reason that the U.S. Transhumanist Party de-emphasizes the abortion issue in its Platform and rhetoric. Under the status quo, this issue cannot be constructively resolved. We need technology, such as ectogenesis, to render abortion, and especially the abortion debate, obsolete.
The U.S. Transhumanist Party’s founder, Zoltan Istvan, who is personally a supporter of abortion rights, articulated this point of view in his August 3, 2019, editorial in the New York Times, “The Abortion Debate Is Stuck. Are Artificial Wombs the Answer?”
The U.S. Transhumanist Party also recognizes that its members have a broad spectrum of views on the abortion issue. The USTP, in striving to be a big-tent organization, has intentionally avoided creating any manner of litmus test on this issue vis-à-vis its membership.
The U.S. Transhumanist Party does note, by way of a factual observation, that abortion is currently legal in Nevada statute up to 24 weeks (6 months), and thus if Ballot Question 6 is defeated, this would not affect the status quo in regard to the legality and availability of abortions in Nevada. Ballot Question 6 proposes to establish a right to abortion within the Nevada Constitution and would extend the timeframe of legal abortion “until fetal viability or when necessary to protect the health or life of the pregnant individual at any point during the pregnancy”. If enacted, Ballot Question 6 would thus likely broaden the timeframe during which abortions would be legal, in many cases substantially beyond 6 months.
Accordingly, individual members are free to vote their conscience, or to abstain from voting, on Ballot Question 6, however they may choose.
Nevada State Question 7 – Voter Identification Initiative
Wording of Question: “Should the Nevada Constitution be amended to require voters to either present photo identification to verify their identity when voting in-person or to provide certain personal information to verify their identity when voting by mail ballot?” (More information on BallotPedia.)
Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party seek to render it easier, not harder, for people (and sentient entities more generally) to be able to vote in elections. As a party with the broadest franchise of any organization known to it – extending the prerogative for Allied Membership to “any being capable of logical reasoning and of the expression of political opinions” (U.S. Transhumanist Party Constitution, Article II, Section X) – and enabling Allied Members to vote in its internal elections, the USTP is supportive of making voting as accessible as possible to as many sentient entities as possible. The USTP practices this in its internal voting processes, where electronic, ranked-preference voting has been used with significant success and with robust verification that only genuine USTP members (and not, for instance, non-sentient bots that serve a particular special interest) have been the ones casting votes.
While it is not inherently in conflict with the USTP’s values to require some manner of identification to render a person eligible to vote, the USTP does not consider a requirement of voter identification at the time of voting to be necessary for this purpose. When an individual registers to vote, it is already the case in Nevada that one of several listed forms of identification needs to be produced to demonstrate that this person is a U.S. citizen residing in the district where this person is seeking to register to vote. It is not necessary, once a person is registered to vote, to duplicatively require the same voter identification when that person seeks to cast their ballot. Per the official Arguments Against Passage of Question 7 on the Nevada Sample Ballot, “impersonating someone else at the polls [almost] never happens. One study found that that out of more than a billion votes cast, it happened 31 times – statistically zero. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning.”
Furthermore, requiring hard-copy voter identification at the time of voting reinforces an already-obsolete paper-based voting system which should, as soon as the technology is viable and deployable at scale, be replaced with an electronic, blockchain-based system using which people could securely verify their identities and vote from the comfort of their homes.
In practice, Ballot Question 7 would limit who is able to vote in Nevada and would, through procedural barriers, deprive some number of U.S. citizens who are legally eligible to vote and properly registered to vote from being able to vote in practice. The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party view such an outcome as contrary to their support for enfranchising more sentient entities. Accordingly, the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party are opposed to Ballot Question 7.
U.S. Transhumanist Party Candidates Tom Ross and Daniel Twedt Respond to Free and Equal Debate #2 Questions
Tom Ross
Daniel Twedt
Gennady Stolyarov II
Art Ramon Garcia, Jr.
Jason Geringer
On Sunday, July 14, 2024, the U.S. Transhumanist Party 2024 U.S. Presidential Candidate Tom Ross and U.S. Vice-Presidential Candidate Daniel Twedt responded to the questions posed during the Free and Equal Elections Foundation Presidential Debate #2, which was held on July 12, 2024, at FreedomFest in Las Vegas.
The Ross-Twedt ticket received the same questions as posed to Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party), Jill Stein (Green Party), and Randall Terry (Constitution Party), and had the opportunity to express their positions and respond to the other candidates’ comments. Afterward, the panelists and audience provided feedback on the Free and Equal Debate and the Ross-Twedt responses.
5:23 – Tom Ross’s opening statement 7:57 – Daniel Twedt’s Opening Statement 10:45 – Question 1 14:17 – Question 2 21:08 – Question 3 28:06 – Question 4 32:01 – Question 5 36:45 – Question 6 40:49 – Question 7 47:11 – Question 8 51:44 – Question 9 53:30 – Question 10 55:18 – Question 11 57:57 – Question 12 1:01:14 – Question 13 1:04:25 – Tom Ross’s Closing Statement 1:06:00 – Daniel Twedt’s Closing Statement 1:09:11 – Tom Ross’s and Daniel Twedt’s feedback regarding the candidates at the July 12 debate 1:17:48 – How Daniel Twedt and Tom Ross would address the Economic Singularity 1:20:36 – How to reduce the fear of transhumanism 1:26:05 – The best way AI can mature 1:29:48 – How transhumanists can build bridges with the religious 1:36:08 – How transhumanists can build bridges with other belief systems 1:41:23 – How the future could be bright 1:53:24 – Closing thoughts
***
To learn more about the Tom Ross / Daniel Twedt 2024 Presidential Campaign, visit the U.S. Transhumanist Party’s Candidates page, recently updated with additional resources, interviews, and campaign videos: https://transhumanist-party.org/candidate-profiles/
Gennady Stolyarov II
Mike DiVerde David Wood Alaura Blackstone Luis Arroyo Art Ramon Garcia, Jr.
William Marshall Michael Saenz Allen Crowley
On Sunday, January 28, 2024, the U.S. Transhumanist Party invited members of the OmniFuturists to discuss their new book, Future Visions: Approaching the Economic Singularity – available on Amazon at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CTGHJCT4 – which offers a diverse array of political and economic perspectives in order to address a possible near-future tidal wave of technological unemployment.
The following authors presented regarding their book chapters, their outlooks on the Economic Singularity, and their views on the best options for responding and/or adjusting to it.
– Mike DiVerde
– David Wood
– Alaura Blackstone
– Luis Arroyo
– Art Ramon
– William Marshall
– Michael Saenz
– Allen Crowley
Summary Nevada State Question 1 – Equality of Rights Amendment: Support
Nevada State Question 2 – Minimum Wage Amendment: Neutral
Nevada State Question 3 – Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative: Strongly Support
Nevada State Ballot Question 1 – Equality of Rights Amendment:
Wording of Question: “Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended by adding a specific guarantee that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this State or any of its cities, counties, or other political subdivisions on account of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry, or national origin?” (More information on BallotPedia.)
Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party consider it necessary to support Ballot Question 1 because of the broader commitment to universal rights expressed in the Transhumanist Bill of Rights – Version 3.0. Article I of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights reads, in part, that “All sentient entities are entitled, to the extent of their individual decisions, to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this TRANSHUMANIST BILL OF RIGHTS, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, gender, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, social, or planetary origin, property, birth (including manner of birth), biological or non-biological origins, or other status.” The text of Nevada State Ballot Question 1 recognizes equality of rights for a subset of the above-listed sentient entities and is therefore a step in the correct direction. In the prohibition on governmental entities denying or abridging rights on the basis of the attributes mentioned, Ballot Question 1 expresses the essential principle that individuals should be treated as individuals, not members of larger, mostly circumstantial identity groups. This is affirmed in Article X of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights, which states, in part, that “Morphological freedom entails the duty to treat all sapients as individuals instead of categorizing them into arbitrary subgroups or demographics, including as yet undefined subcategorizations that may arise as sapience evolves.” The rights of an individual should therefore not be abridged, especially by governments, simply because the individual happens to belong to a broader category whose definition is many times outside the scope of that individual’s personal choices.
Nevada State Ballot Question 2 – Minimum Wage Amendment:
Wording of Question: “Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended, effective July 1, 2024, to: (1) establish the State’s minimum wage that employers must pay to certain employees at a rate of $12 per hour worked, subject to any applicable increases above that $12 rate provided by federal law or enacted by the Nevada Legislature; (2) remove the existing provisions setting different rates for the minimum wage based on whether the employer offers certain health benefits to such employees; and (3) remove the existing provisions for adjusting the minimum wage based on applicable increases in the cost of living?” (More information on BallotPedia.)
Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party are neutral on Ballot Question 2, as both of our parties’ Platforms are silent on the issue of the minimum wage, whether it should exist at all, whether higher or lower amounts of the minimum wage are preferable, and whether or not the presence of any health benefits should be able to count toward satisfying a portion of any minimum-wage requirement. Accordingly, our members in Nevada are encouraged to vote their conscience on this ballot question by consulting their own individual understandings of the relevant matters.
Nevada State Ballot Question 3 – Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative:
Wording of Question: “Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow all Nevada voters the right to participate in open primary elections to choose candidates for the general election in which all voters may then rank the remaining candidates by preference for the offices of U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Controller, Attorney General, and State Legislators?” (More information on BallotPedia.)
Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: In the view of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party, this is the single most important ballot measure in Nevada political history, as it has the potential to break the stranglehold of the duopoly on Nevada politics. The plurality of Nevada voters are independent of the major political parties, and yet they are currently unable to meaningfully influence many local races where a major-party primary determines that party’s nominee, who then receives no meaningful competition at the ballot box in the general election. Moreover, Nevada, as a “battleground” electoral state, often features great pressure applied on voters to support the “lesser evil”, despite many Nevada voters being rightly disillusioned with both the Republican and the Democratic “options” provided to them. Ranked-preference voting eliminates the incentive to vote strategically or for a “lesser evil” to the exclusion of one’s genuinely preferred candidate, since one can provide a complete rank-ordering of one’s preferences rather than limit oneself to one choice.
Section XXX of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform states that “The United States Transhumanist Party supports replacing the current ‘winner-take-all’ electoral system with proportional representation, ranked preference voting, and other devices to minimize the temptations by voters to favor a perceived ‘lesser evil’ rather than the candidates closest to those voters’ own preferences.” Thus, support for ranked-choice voting is directly embedded in our Platform. Furthermore, Section XIX of the USTP Platform reads, in part, “The United States Transhumanist Party supports an end to the two-party political system in the United States and a substantially greater inclusion of ‘third parties’ in the political process through mechanisms such as proportional representation and the elimination of stringent ballot-access requirements.” Allowing open access to primaries and enabling ranked-preference voting in the general election would certainly lower the barriers to entry to candidates who do not belong to either of the duopoly parties.
The U.S. Transhumanist Party has successfully implemented ranked-preference voting in multiple of its internal votes. There is every reason to expect that ranked-preference voting could be implemented with similar success for the much simpler top-five ballots in Nevada general elections that would be developed if Question 3 were to be approved by the voters (twice, the first time this year). The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party strongly encourage every Nevada voter to support Ballot Question 3.
2022 is the year of the Great Filter. There has never been a more dangerous time for our species before, and there will not be again, if we survive this year.
The war in Ukraine has brought the world to the edge of nuclear calamity, because neither side wishes to negotiate or make concessions. The Russian regime makes reckless nuclear threats, Western/NATO powers recklessly ignore them, and continue to supply offensive weapons to Ukrainian forces, whose ideology favors recklessly dying for their country instead of prudently choosing to live for themselves. The risks of especially unintended, accidental escalation continue to accumulate the longer this war drags on with no clear end in sight.
The one ray of hope in all this is that I am firmly convinced that this is a unique, non-repeatable situation. If humankind can avoid extinction arising from reckless escalation here, then our species will never be in this much existential danger again, at least not from manmade causes. Here I provide my top ten reasons for holding this outlook.
1. Vladimir Putin’s misguided ideology and complete misunderstanding of the military and geopolitical situation in Russia and Ukraine led to this disaster of an invasion, but Putin is not in good health and thus his days in office are numbered. Any other person in power would not be locked into Putin’s must-win situation and may likely try to undo the damage and even try to bolster his reputation for doing so. The key is to avoid escalation while Putin remains in power, to prevent Putin from seeing no reason not to take the world down with him. If we wait this out, Putin will either succumb to his illness or be “encouraged” to retire by his inner circle. But in order to avoid the scenario where he behaves like a cornered rat, we need to allow this to happen on its own.
2. The stresses of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a uniquely insane climate of public opinion, including in the West (while also contributing to the irrationality of Putin). Norms of civility and the valuation of peace have been significantly eroded, particularly among the neoconservatives, the establishment Left, and nationalists of all stripes (Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Baltic, et al.). Accordingly, the preponderance of warmongers among the populations of Europe and America is at a historic high. However, in the coming years, as the pandemic recedes and people gradually regain a sense of normalcy, war fervor will subside, since most of the same people were not advocating war 10 years ago and, under the right circumstances, could become largely peaceful again. Americans were overwhelmingly tired of war through 2021. If we wait this out, war fatigue will become the dominant view again not too long from now.
3. We were on the verge of the Transhuman Era circa 2015 based on the trajectories of various emerging technologies. This, however, was derailed by the Left-Right hyperpolarization from late 2015 onward, by the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 onward, and now by the war in Ukraine in 2022. All of these developments benefited the legacy ruling elite, whom the Transhuman Era would render obsolete; they used these crises to turn ordinary people and innovators against one another, when we should have all been working in concert to build the Transhuman Era. However, if we avoid world war and nuclear annihilation now, then the progress of emerging technologies will still gradually displace the legacy ruling elite and inaugurate the Transhuman Era, at which time humans will become too prosperous and enlightened to be willing to tolerate the risk of species extinction.
4. Averting nuclear war in 2022 will lead to the widespread recognition of how close we came to calamity from the potential of a pointless local conflict to engulf the world. The phrase “Never again” will henceforth be applied to nuclear brinkmanship, and a concerted push for worldwide nuclear disarmament could be made by a coalition of activist groups who are already sympathetic to this cause. They will have a lot more political capital once people are able to take a breath and come to their senses.
5. Artificial intelligence and nanotechnology will never pose the same existential risk as nuclear weapons, because their modes of functioning are much more sophisticated, and thus there will be many more places along the chain of events leading to calamity where human intervention could stop that chain of events. AI and nanotechnology of the future will be “smart”, which will make them safer. Nuclear weapons are “dumb”, combined with awesome destructive capacity, which makes them the most dangerous technology of all history, past and future.
6. Climate change, too, is a much milder and even non-existential risk, compared to nuclear war. This is a risk that will play out over decades, allowing for mitigation and reversal through emerging technologies, as well as adaptation to any lasting climate shifts. This is not to say that climate change would inflict no damage, but rather that the damage would be far from enough to destroy the species or even significantly slow down our technological and economic progress. If we can avoid nuclear war in 2022 (which would also bring about the worst climate change of all – a nuclear winter), then it will be much more feasible to devote more resources toward the development and deployment of technologies that would counteract climate change.
7. For all of the irrational panic regarding the alleged threat of China, the fact is that China has orders of magnitude fewer nuclear weapons than Russia or the United States. The Chinese government knows that it would lose any nuclear war decisively. Hence, China will never attempt or provoke a nuclear war. When it comes to the risk of civilization-ending nuclear war, only a conflict between the United States and Russia would pose that risk. Moreover, China is so globally interconnected through trade, especially with the United States, that it would never risk a military conflict which would be tantamount to economic suicide.
8. If nuclear war is avoided in 2022, Putin’s regime will atrophy by 2025 (as long as the Western powers do not try to overthrow him or invade Russia, an attempt which would paradoxically strengthen Putin’s regime, just as the sanctions against Russia have done by rallying Russians through a sense of being attacked and targeted by the West). Once Putin’s regime atrophies and is discredited within Russia, it will be possible to support more humane politicians in Russia, who might continue the policies of Gorbachev and seek at least a phased nuclear disarmament. As noted above, among geopolitical conflicts, only the US-Russia nuclear standoff poses an existential risk to the human species. Nuclear disarmament of Russia, or even a determined move in that direction, would essentially resolve that risk.
9. With enough time during which peace prevails, the Transhuman Era will see the creation of technologies that would help avert other existential risks, such as asteroids, supervolcanoes, and any yet-unforeseen consequences of future technologies. Existential risk will decline with each peaceful year from now on.
10. Surviving 2022 will give humankind an impetus to pursue the rejection of the Cold War mentality, of militant nationalism (especially ethnic nationalism, which is the most pernicious), and of Left-Right polarization. Getting rid of those three terrible mindsets will be largely enough to render most of humankind constructive again. It is only because of those mindsets that we have not reached the Transhuman Era already. Just as the aftermath of World War II rendered certain ideologies unacceptable, so I hope that the narrow avoidance of World War III will render Cold Warriorism, Left-Right militancy, and ethno-nationalism unacceptable in America and Europe at the very least. (The rest of the world could help us in overcoming these perilous mindsets. One consequence I hope to see in the coming decades is a multi-polar world with a greater prominence for Asian, African, and Latin American countries, to broaden our perspectives on the considerations that should matter for the future of humanity.)
So, essentially we just have to survive 2022 without a nuclear war in order for history to turn toward the long arc of progress once again. However, we absolutely have to survive 2022 – and this will entirely depend on whether public opinion will be able to restrain the war fervor of Western hawks in particular. A combination of reckless overconfidence, intransigence, and moral self-righteousness (on both sides) has placed our species into unparalleled danger. Perhaps this was the kind of moment from which many alien civilizations have not been able to emerge successfully – hence, one potential explanation for Fermi’s paradox. Will we have enough prudence and basic love of life to avoid that fate? We will find out in the next several months. If we pass this Great Filter, a future of boundless possibility and growth awaits our species. Do not throw this future away over a local conflict. What humans do now will be most consequential for the future of the entire universe.
This essay may be freely reproduced using the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike International 4.0 License, which requires that credit be given to the author, G. Stolyarov II. Find out about Mr. Stolyarovhere.
Gennady Stolyarov II and John Kerecz: Reflections on 2021, Anticipations for 2022
On January 14, 2022, U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II was interviewed by U.S. Transhumanist Party Director of Energy Issues John Kerecz on OSH Radio, for a retrospective conversation about how 2021 turned out relative to prior anticipations, as well as key developments to watch for in 2022. Subjects discussed included the precarious nature of contemporary civilization, the immense and ongoing perils of deadly diseases, how technology has affected both the opportunities and the constraints of contemporary life, the problems of political polarization and the two-party system, the need for a new paradigm of an abundance economy and society, the U.S. Transhumanist Party’s aspirations and projects, the Virtual Enlightenment Salons (John Kerecz is scheduled to be a guest on January 23, 2022, to discuss his 2014 flight to the edge of space), some reminiscences about earlier USTP history, and contrasts between in-person and virtual interactions. In this interview Mr. Stolyarov discusses his understanding that we live in a make-or-break moment in human history, and that the future trajectory of the human species will depend on what we do in 2022.
Watch this video on YouTube here and on Odysee here.
Jason Geringer
Ben Ballweg
Zach Richardson
Gennady Stolyarov II
David Shumaker
Art Ramon Garcia, Jr.
Alexandria Black
The U.S. Transhumanist Party Virtual Enlightenment Salon with Zach Richardson, Jason Geringer, and Ben Ballweg of July 25, 2021, is now available for viewing on Odysee here.
On Sunday, July 25, 2021, at 4 p.m. U.S. Pacific Time, the U.S. Transhumanist Party invited its new Officers, Zach Richardson (Director of Publication), Jason Geringer (Legislative Director), and Ben Ballweg (Director of Longevity Outreach), to discuss some of their ideas, planned initiatives, and perspectives on the current condition of the transhumanist movement. The discussion focused on improving the internal functions of the U.S. Transhumanist Party, attracting volunteers, and raising the visibility of transhumanist projects and causes. An interactive discussion transpired about ways to bolster the publication and legislative-tracking activities of the USTP. The conversation also extended to subjects of general interest to transhumanists, futurists, and those seeking to learn about the transhumanist movement.
Read about Zach Richardson here.
Read about Jason Geringer here.
Read about Ben Ballweg here.
NOTE: Even though the U.S. Transhumanist Party is staunchly pro-vaccine and expressed such views during the Virtual Enlightenment Salon, YouTube algorithmically censored the video, most likely with no serious human involvement, and algorithmically rejected our appeal as well. The U.S. Transhumanist Party strongly condemns such censorship but also sees an opportunity here by encouraging people to watch and spread this video for the purpose of overcoming arbitrary barriers put forth by unintelligent and unaccountable algorithms.
Ben Ballweg, U.S. Transhumanist Party Director of Longevity Outreach
The second motif consisting of eight notes alternated with 16th notes answer this question justifying human mortality (Fig. B).
In the illustration above in Fig. C, Alkan’s rhythmic and technical patterns give a sense of urgency and anxiety to the desire of fulfillment.
