Chairman's 9th Anniversary Message and Q&A - Gennady Stolyarov II - Transhumanist Party Enlightenment Salon

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Greetings and welcome to the United States Transhumanist Party Virtual
Enlightenment Salon. My name is Jannati stolier Off the second
and I am the Chairman of the US Transhumanist Party.
Here we hold conversations with some of the world's leading
thinkers in longevity, science, technology, philosophy and politics. Like the

(00:36):
philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment, we aim to connect
every field of human endeavor and arrive at new insights
to achieve longer lives, greater rationality, and the progress of
our civilization. Greetings, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to our
US Transhumanist Party Virtual Enlightenment Salon of Sunday, November thirtieth,

(01:01):
twenty twenty five. And this will be a special salon
because it will double as my Chairman's anniversary message on
the occasion of nine years, having lassed already since I
became chairman on November seventeenth, twenty sixteen. But also this

(01:21):
will be an opportunity to engage with you, our viewers,
because I have held question and answer sessions from time
to time and I have found them to be productive
in addressing what matters to our members and our audience.
Anybody who is curious, So welcome, thank you for being here.

(01:44):
And before I begin, I would like to introduce our
esteemed panelists who will be joining us live, including our
director of Visual Art Art Tramon Garcia, our member from
Texas who heads the Texas Transhumanist Party, Alan Crowley, and
our director of Citizen and Community Science who also ran

(02:05):
as our vice presidential candidate in the twenty twenty four election,
Daniel Tweet. So welcome Artramon, Allan and Daniel. And thank
you by the way, to Jennifer Hughes who is in
the chat. She writes, we appreciate all you do for
the party in the world, Jannati, I really appreciate that.
And of course Jennifer was our endorsed mayoral candidate for

(02:27):
the city of Camden, New Jersey back in twenty twenty one.
She was the first person in about fifty years to
challenge the Democratic Party monopoly over Camden, New Jersey, and
she ran on an explicitly pro life extension platform. So
this was the first time we're aware of that a
mayoral candidate in the United States had a pro life

(02:49):
extension platform. But now let us begin with my thoughts
as regards the ninth anniversary of my becoming Chairman of
the United States Transhumanist Party at the request of Zultan
ish Fund. So this ninth anniversary occurred on November seventeenth

(03:10):
of this year, and the past year has been one
of the most eventful during my tenure as chairman. Despite
the conclusion of our Ross Tweed presidential campaign last year,
twenty twenty five has been anything but an off year
for political activity, characterized both by macro turbulence in the

(03:32):
United States generally, as well as both great opportunities and
immense setbacks in the transhumanist and life extensionist community in particular.
As often happens, we observed a rhyming of history this
year as the ustp endorsed the candidacy of Zultan ish
Fund for Governor of California. Although he is officially running

(03:56):
as a Democrat, many of his policies, including the promotion
of an automated abundance economy, a universal basic income, the
construction of new high tech cities, and the use of
technology to fight wildfires, are strongly aligned with the US
Transhumanist Party platform. I have a link here to the

(04:17):
Transhumanist Party platform, which I encourage any of you who
have not read it yet to study thoroughly. But we
are enthusiastic about Zultan's campaign. We held a virtual Enlightenment
salon with Zultan on June fifteenth, twenty twenty five, where

(04:38):
we explored his stances in detail and asked him some
challenging questions. Ultimately, our members determined by a wide margin
that his campaign was indeed aligned with the USTP platform
and objectives, and you can see the more detailed results
of that vote at this link. The I am sharing here,

(05:01):
as well as the results of the other votes that
we held concurrently that I will also discuss. Even in
areas where Zultan diverged from us, such as in some
of his more pessimistic rhetoric about the potential impacts of
artificial intelligence, it appears that this rhetoric served more as

(05:24):
an initial hook to attract public attention, a technique that
Sultan often uses. Once he has that attention, he redirects
it toward more techno optimistic solutions, such as providing a
humanoid robot for every home and harnessing AI for education
so that humans do not get left behind in the

(05:45):
upcoming technological transformation. Overall, Despite some rhetorical differences, our members
determined that Zultan's campaign is transhumanist in substance, and Zultan
has remained a vocal proponent of radical life extension while
continuing to publicly share the messaging of the US Transhumanist

(06:06):
Party and the fact of our endorsement. We also anticipate
highlighting his campaign using our media resources as twenty twenty
six gets underway. Zultanischwan is not the only candidate whom
we endorsed as during our member vote in August and
September of twenty twenty five. Timothy Grady also earned our

(06:30):
support and Timothy Grady is running an independent campaign for
governor of Ohio. You can see his policy page linked here.
This campaign seeks to transcend the duopoly of left and
right and bring economic, cultural, and political revitalization to the

(06:54):
state of Ohio. And we also hosted a virtual Enlightenment
Salon which with Timothy Grady last Sunday on November twenty third,
twenty twenty five, where he thoroughly delved into his vision
for constructive policy solutions for Ohio and the workings of
American politics. More generally. He provided a call to urgent

(07:18):
action as in his view, we have, since the two
thousand and eight global financial crisis, been in an extended
time window when paradigm shifting ideas and innovations can take hold.
But that time window may not last for much longer,
and therefore now is our time to shift the political
discourse and public perceptions of what is possible. Otherwise some

(07:42):
far less palatable ideologies may take hold and share the
predominant and shape the predominant forms of political life for
multiple decades to come. The potential for a wide array
of candidate endorsements was all also opened by our entry
into the All Hands for a Free Future political coalition

(08:06):
with the us Pirate Party, which shares with us a
strong appreciation for individual liberty, technological progress, and the pursuit
of universal abundance. The Pirate Party will have candidates at
the state and local levels in areas and for offices
where there are likely to be no active transhumanist contenders,

(08:28):
and the efficient cross endorsement process made possible via the
coalition will allow us to cast a wider net in
pursuing our objectives through like minded allies. Our virtual Enlightenment
salons with the us Pirate Party occurred on December fifteenth,

(08:51):
twenty twenty four, when we hosted Captain Johlly Mitch Devilo,
and then on June twenty ninth, two thousand and twenty five,
when we hosted Captain Drew binghaman of the US Pirate Party.
These salons highlighted many areas of alignment which led to

(09:12):
this coalition becoming solidified in recognition of the significant efficiencies
that can be gained through collaboration and cross endorsement while
retaining our unique organizational characters, structures, and approaches to governance
and membership. And I will stress that latter point because

(09:32):
this is a coalition, it's an alliance, it's not a merger.
The Transhumanist Party and the Pirate Party remain distinct political
entities with their own governance, their own leadership structure, their
own methods of decision making. And we will collaborate where

(09:55):
we deem appropriate. And of course, the cross endorsement process
is there, and you can be on the lookout for
news in the near future regarding how that cross endorsement
process will function and some of the first candidates who
will receive our support by means of it. So I

(10:15):
think you will be interested to find out about some
of these candidates whom the us Pirate Party has endorsed,
as well as additional candidates who will be seeking the
endorsement of our members and future votes. So, in effect,
there are two pathways by which candidates may receive our endorsement.
One would be to approach us and ask for a

(10:39):
vote of the US Transhumanist Party members as we have
done historically to endorse that candidate, or if that candidate
is seeking the endorsement of the us Pirate Party and
the Pirate Party approves that person's candidacy through their own process,
we will essentially grant reciprocal recognition to the us Pirate

(11:04):
Party's action in making that endorsement. Also in April and
May of twenty twenty five, I was honored to attend
four of the eight Vitalist Bay conferences. Vitalist Bay occurred
this year in Berkeley, California, and there were four conferences

(11:28):
in particular that I attended, the Longevity Science Conference, the
Vitalist Based Summit, the Biostasis Conference which focused on cryonics,
and the Longevity Policy Conference, all at the Lighthaven Facility
in Berkeley, which is quite unique and interesting. These were

(11:50):
gatherings of great minds that also facilitated in depth intellectual
exchange and the beginnings of coordination on policy activism and
movement building in a field which is too often still
siloed and where individual projects, while excellent and promising in themselves,
may be lacking in support from a community and a

(12:11):
network that would both spread information about them and benefit
from their successes as we all benefit from longer and
healthier lives in particular. On May twenty five, twenty twenty five,
at the Longevity Policy Conference, I delivered my presentation why
openly transhumanist politics is needed for Vitalism to succeed. I

(12:37):
think this is an extremely important presentation for USTP members
to watch. It provides an encapsulation of some of my
most current thinking about where we can most effectively make
a difference politically. It elaborates upon my view that explicitly
transhumanist politics is necessary for the movement for radical life

(12:58):
extension to become more widely embraced, as well as my
theory of change how a persistent core such as what
I intend for the USTP to become can facilitate steady
progress towards the goal without risking derailment by the all
too common pressures both internal and external, that cause most
organizations to perform suboptimally or even ruin them altogether. And

(13:22):
I will delve into this in a bit more death later,
but first of all, I want to discuss LEV the Game.
And LEV the Game is really quite a unique initiative.
It's a long standing project of the US Transhumanist Party

(13:45):
since late twenty twenty, even though the original version of
the game was initiated in twenty fourteen by a different
team of individuals, and we have had the rights to
essentially resurrect this game since late twenty twenty. I am

(14:08):
proud that in twenty twenty five, in particular, a publicly
playable version has been posted to the US Transhumanist Party website.
So please check it out on Transhumanist dash party dot org.
There's a link to it right on the front page.

(14:28):
And I have spent a lot of time this year
traveling to promote a playable version of LV the Game again.
You can play it if you have a PC that
runs Windows or Linux operating system. In the future, hopefully
we'll have a web version of it a mobile version

(14:49):
of it, but for now it is a let's say
nineteen nineties style PC game, and it's very convenient, it's
very portable. So I demonstrated it at Longevity Summit Dublin
on July fourth, two thousand and twenty five, and I

(15:11):
will show a few screenshots. From that presentation, I overviewed
the history of LV the game, and also I provided
a sample playthrough for a character named Bob the Second

(15:34):
and Bob the Second starts out in the year two
thousand and twenty five, with his chronological age and biological
age both at seventy six. And in this demonstration, I
showed what an incremental path toward living an indefinitely long
life might look like, even for a person of advanced

(15:57):
age today who might still be able to make it
from here to there. Of course, the game is probabilistic.
It offers no guarantees, but also such as life. Then
I demonstrated LEV the game in a live playthrough at
Radfest in Las Vegas, and that demonstration was interactive. It

(16:23):
engaged the audience. The audience members got to make some
choices on behalf of the character Lazarus long named after
the protagonist in many of Robert Heinlein's science fiction novels,
and in particular Methuselis's Children was one of the first
longevist science fiction novels, where Lazarus Long is the hero.

(16:46):
I highly recommend that book, and then my presentation of
lev the Game was part of the Longevity Activist panel
at Radfest. It was moderated by doctor Jose Cordero, the
technology advisor of the US Transhumanist Party and the ustpiece

(17:08):
for an ambassador in Spain. In the course of that
discussion that ensued in between enacting the death of Death
on the stage essentially our friend Eric Hennegan, who has
also been a Virtual Enlightenment Salon guest. He dressed up
as the Grim Reaper and we banished him, but we

(17:29):
also interviewed him, so it was a very interesting kind
of performance. But in the course of both banishing and
discoursing with the Grim Reaper, I shared insights as to
what essentially anyone in our movement can do to have
an outsized impact, and this is where I would recommend

(17:51):
watching the panel in particular. One of my key points
is there are many projects that are already underway but
which lacks some crucial resource, whether attention, effort or financial resources,
and these do not have to be extensive financial resources.
For instance, LV the game the whole project to resurrect

(18:14):
it costs me less than ten thousand dollars of my
own funds. So whether you have that kind of resource,
or you have a different kind of resource, or you
just have time to devote to a project, a modicum
of any of these could make the difference between the

(18:36):
projects succeeding and it languishing. There is an astonishing number
of projects in the longevity space, in the transhumanist space
that could just use a little bit of jolt of
energy or enthusiasm or support and they will succeed. And
the reason why they may be stagnating is just because

(18:58):
nobody seems to have the time or the tiny, relatively
speaking amount of resources to push it across the finish line.
The key is not merely to strategize, and especially not
merely to criticize, even if the criticism is well intentioned,
but to take action to create concrete deliverables sooner rather

(19:21):
than later. One does not need to reinvent the metaphorical wheel.
There are already many transhumanist or transhumanist adjacent vehicles metaphorically speaking,
that are proceeding more slowly than its desirable, and one's
efforts could jumpstart them or drive them skillfully and with purpose.

(19:41):
On the last day of Radfest, I was pleased to
stream a virtual Enlightenment salon directly from the event. And
this was the first salon of its kind in the
sense that we did it live during a busy conference.
All of our prior live stream were subsequent to the

(20:02):
conference or during some downtime. But I think overall this
stream was informative for our viewers. I showed a presentation
by Cody Dean of Immortalis or Niovia, after which Cody
Dean in turn interviewed me. And here's the link to

(20:25):
the high definition version of the interview that just came out.
It's called the Political Blueprint to Outage Agent, and this
interview included an overview of the US Transhumanist Party, its history,
and notable candidates whom the USTP has endorsed. So we

(20:45):
mentioned Tom Ross and Daniel Tweet. We mentioned Charlie cam
and Liz Parrish. We mentioned Jennifer Hughes as well, and
there is also a discussion of how Cody and I
both came to see Radical life extension is feasible within
our lifetimes as well as the goal of immortalis to
create longevity freedom zones in various parts of the world

(21:07):
to enable more rapid innovation in treatments to extend lifespans
and cure diseases. We discuss proximate pragmatic possibilities for political change,
and I think there is this alignment on being pragmatic
and doing what we can to make a real difference
in the world, and that could include pragmatic alliances on

(21:31):
specific issues with certain governments, certain leaders who are willing
to take the next step of for instance, declaring aging
and disease, or making their countries or their jurisdictions or
some portions thereof welcoming to medical research that might otherwise

(21:52):
not take place. Unfortunately, not all has been well this
past year. The Grimmer may have been symbolically banished both
at Radfest in Las Vegas and again on October first,
twenty twenty five during the March for Longevity in Madrid

(22:16):
organized by Jose Cordero to align with the Transvision Madrid conference,
from which we actually provided four streams of presentations and
hopefully there will be one more in the future. This
conference was filmed to great effect by Sergio Terrero, our

(22:37):
ally and founder of the Alianza Futurista transhumanist political party
in Spain, which is incidentally exactly one year older than
the USTP, having been founded on October seventh, twenty thirteen.
So the March for Longevity was great, and banishing the
Grim Reaper symbolically was great. However, the Grim Reapers still

(23:03):
exacted his toe this year, and in a way that
hit quite close to home for many of us. Twenty
twenty five, more than any other year, has been characterized
by great loss in transhumanist circles. Our very own Director
of Energy Issues, John Carrots, succumbed suddenly to a pulmonary

(23:27):
embolism on May sixteenth, twenty twenty five. He left behind
a plethora of writings, video appearances, and musical creations, one
of the most extensive mind files of anyone we have encountered,
but still a pale shadow of the man himself. There
is now a void which cannot be filled, but one

(23:48):
can appreciate and learn from all of his multifaceted contributions
to our movement. We have prepared a tribute to him,
which is linked here. A special video compilation of his
interview and debate appearances and music, and also a web
page where many of his works can be conveniently accessed.

(24:10):
We have also embedded a lot of his past video appearances,
whether as a guest, for instance, on Steel Archer's Debtonation show,
or as an interviewer on his own channel, Osh Radio,
which is still up on YouTube, and you can visit
literally the thousands of videos that he created now. Unfortunately,

(24:36):
the loss of John Carrotts was not the only loss
that we experienced. Another blow was dealt on September tenth,
twenty twenty five, when Carl Carlisle, who was born in
nineteen forty. He was one of the earliest life extension
activists in the United States, and he died at the

(24:57):
age of eighty five. Honishingly, little has been said of
his death, apart from a short obituary from the Neptune
Society which I've linked here, in which the fairly brief
information and commentary aligned with the details that were known
about Carl Carlyle. So I have actually done a bit

(25:20):
of research to make sure that this is indeed the
Carl Carlyle whom we spoke with previously, and Unfortunately, I
can confirm that it was. We were fortunate to have
Carl as a guest on our Virtual Enlightenment Salon of
February twelfth, twenty twenty three, where he shared much of

(25:42):
the history of early life extensionist movements which might otherwise
have been forgotten, but we will now preserve it. We
lament that Carl did not live to see the future
that he worked toward for over six decades since his
efforts as an activist with a Student League for the
Abolition of Mortality or SLAM in the early nineteen sixties.

(26:06):
And I do see a question from Jennifer Hughes, did
Carl have cryonics as his end of life? Unfortunately, I
highly doubt it because the Neptune Society is a society
that specializes in cremation. And Daniel Tweet writes He's glad
we preserved a Virtual Enlightenment Salon with Carl Carlisle absolutely

(26:29):
and on the death of John Carrotz, Louis Arroyo rights
rest in peace. John Jason Geringer writes he was a
really cool guy. Jennifer Hughes writes, such a tragic loss,
and Luis Arroyo also points out It's sad some of
the members from Pennsylvania came over to the New York

(26:52):
Transhumanist Party given the void. So thank you for those comments.
I wanted to acknowledge that our membership as a whole
feels the losses of these individuals, these contributors to the
transhumanist movement most profoundly. And I lost my own grandfather

(27:18):
at the age of ninety one in January of this year.
This is the grandfather I'm named after, So he's Jannati Stolierov.
The first and as late as my conversation with him
from January of two thousand and nineteen. He was able

(27:40):
to anticipate future advancements in technology, including AI assistance, even
though he could not experience that technology personally. He was
already in cognitive decline by the time generative AI really
became available to the public. But we have essentially almost
entire I really lost his cohort now, the generation who

(28:03):
were children during World War Two and who helped create
the largely prosperous world of its aftermath, which is now
being imperiled by polarization and rising irrationality. We are also
on the verge of losing the subsequent generation those born
in the nineteen forties and nineteen fifties, unless we do
something to stop the travesty of generational diofs soon. As

(28:29):
I've said before, every time an individual dies, we lose
a precious, irreplaceable universe of thoughts, experiences, feelings, memories, and
some of their writings can be preserved, some of their
video appearances can be preserved. Maybe in the future AI
avatars can be created, but it's still not the same

(28:49):
as having the individual. It is far from being the same,
and I lament that we should have been further along
technologically by now. But bad culture, a culture characterized by polarization, fear,
pettiness and myopia, has stifled us, especially in the past
ten years, and becoming worse in the past year, which

(29:14):
I will also touch on. Yet we have no reasonable
choice but to defy the cultural decline and persevere in
bringing forth the vision of a better, much longer lived future.
So persevere we shall, and along these lines we have
continued on a course of moderate membership growth in the

(29:35):
past year, with the total membership count now approaching forty
eight hundred, not quite there, but likely to exceed that
number by the end of twenty twenty five. Above all, though,
what we seek are more active members who will contribute
to our projects, attend our events, and highlight the true
depth and breadth of transhumanist ideas and aspirations. And I

(29:59):
think think the three panelists we have today are Tramone,
Alan Crowley and Daniel Tweet are examples of the kinds
of active members whom we would like to see, and
many of you in the live chat are also examples
of those active members, particularly our regular Virtual Enlightenment Salon
viewers who have been with us, sometimes almost every session

(30:24):
for the past five and a half years. It is
all too easy to get discouraged by the overwhelming problems
in the world and by the magnitude of the task
before us. However, one person can make a difference, especially
now with technologies of individual hyper empowerments such as generative
artificial intelligence becoming widespread. Of course, you still need to

(30:48):
have the wisdom and discernment to use these technologies well
and effectively, and that is a learning process that all
of us are undertaking. I would like to caution our viewers, however,
that stewing in social media echo chambers does not constitute
getting involved or making a meaningful difference. All too often

(31:11):
such echo chambers, even if built around important movements or
ideas with significant grains of truth in them, devolve into
what is frequently termed the circular firing squad, where the
worst tendencies take hold and predominate as members turn inward
and attempt to exaggerate and eradicate any differences, thus leading

(31:33):
to the group devouring itself over time. And I note
this is not limited to any political orientation. I observe
this in objectivist forums in the mid two thousands, and
I've seen similar tendencies in libertarian groups. I've seen similar
tendencies in left wing groups, and I see unfortunately similar

(31:56):
tendencies in some transhumanist circles. So this is not ideologically specific.
It's more a function of how these social media echo
chambers are designed and the kinds of incentives that people
face within them, and what these structures bring out in people.
In my view, the best way to resolve this is

(32:17):
to look inward less and look outward more, focusing on
the ways in which one can get involved in projects
and initiatives with an external focus. Those can of course
be online activities, but sharing transhumanist ideas, news and events
with the general public is much more productive than arguing
with fellow transhumanists, or worse, exhibiting negativity, personal attacks, and

(32:40):
hostile intentions toward them. Transhumanists are today still all too human,
with all of the flaws that entails. We are not
immune from the deletarious, evolved baggage of humanity that we
decry in others. If we are to be examples of
what is possible and what is better than a proper

(33:00):
way to look inward when we do that is toward
ourselves and our own behaviors, and to make sure that
they rise to the high standard, indeed the historically unprecedented
standard that is truly worthy of being called a transhumanist.
At the same time, given the highly volatile and tumultuous

(33:21):
state of American politics today, it is imperative for each
side to police its own extremists. And I will speak
of this relatively briefly because I want the major share
of this message in this conversation to be about the
US Transhumanist Party rather than other political parties. But I

(33:46):
think we need to acknowledge that American politics right now
is at a fever pitch, and some truly troubling events
have transpired over the past year politically motivated killings. For instance,
the assassination of Charlie Kirk by Tyler Robinson. Also the

(34:08):
assassinations of Melissa Hortman in Minnesota, Democratic state legislator and
her husband, and then John Hoffman, another state legislator, was
seriously injured and they're the motives of the killer seemed
to be from an extreme right wing persuasion. And furthermore,

(34:32):
there have been other attacks. There was an attack on
Paul Pelosi, the husband of Nancy Pelosi. There was the
killing of Brian Thompson, the CEO of United Healthcare. Whatever
one thinks of these individuals, whether one likes them or
dislikes them, or agrees with them or disagrees with them,
this is a highly troubling tendency because violence, political violence

(34:58):
in particular is increasing being resorted to as a means
of people to act out their grievances instead of argumentation, debate, advocacy, activism,
use of the legal process, publication of articles, publication of
videos the ways in a civilized society that people express

(35:23):
their disagreements and even their frustrations with the system. Unfortunately,
that boundary between speech and violent conduct is increasingly being transgressed.
And it seems to me this is again not a
specific ideology that is responsible for that. It is more

(35:46):
of a tendency of personalities, and these personalities can manifest
themselves under any ideological garb. The ideology becomes essentially epiphenomenal.
It is not really what motive them, it is what
they use as cover as an excuse for their actions.
And this is where I would call upon good people

(36:10):
in every political party, in every political faction, people who
don't want violence, people who don't want a civil war,
to police their own extremists. And I will give an example. Recently,
on the political right in the United States, we have
seen a disturbing rise of one Nick Fuentis and the

(36:31):
so called Groyper movement, who are really neo Nazis in
my view, and they spout very hateful rhetoric toward Jews,
toward non white individuals, toward foreigners, and it is astonishing
how they fit all of the caricatures of the right

(36:51):
that have been espoused on the left for so often.
And I think it's the responsibility of the Republican Party,
including those who align with the MAGA movement to really
convincingly show that they disavow Nick fuents And for all
my differences with him, I think Ben Shapiro is an

(37:13):
example of a commentator who has done that on the right,
and he should be praised for doing that again, no
matter what you think of his other views, he has
really strongly called out Nick Fuentus. Now on the left,
I think there were despicable examples of people laughing at
the killing of Charlie Kirk, and some people were even

(37:35):
calling for his entire family to be murdered. And this
was not the majority of the left, This was not
the majority of Democrats, but it was a few thousand
people on social media. For a few days, social media
were flooded by these kinds of reaction videos, and I
think it is the responsibility of good people on the left,

(37:58):
including politicians from the Democratic Party but also other left
wing progressive activists, to really clamp down on that kind
of celebration of political violence. On the Libertarian Party side,
there has been a disturbing attempt to co op the

(38:20):
Libertarian Party and essentially turn it into an arm of
trumpsm and the former leadership of the Libertarian Party the
so called Nissus Caucus, even though the Austrian economist Muvic
fund Nisus would be spinning in his grave at the
ideas that some of these people espouse. These are not
free market classical liberals by any stretch of the imagination.

(38:43):
Angel mccartial, leading the so called Nisus Caucus, essentially orchestrated
a Libertarian state national convention where Donald Trump and Robert F.
Kennedy Junior were invited to speak in precedence over the
Libertarian parties own candidates, and the leadership of the Libertarian

(39:05):
Party tried to undermine their own candidates prospects of getting nominated,
essentially trying to get the Libertarian Party to support none
of the above as the choice. And I think there
has been some pushback within Libertarian Party circles against this faction.
Angela mccardal is no longer the chairwoman, though she has

(39:28):
kind of exploited her position of power to get into
another position that is on let's say, very good terms
with the Trump administration. And there are some extremists within
that faction who are calling for some very unsaved reactions.
I think it's the responsibility of the majority of libertarians

(39:48):
who are good people who really value individual liberty, free markets,
free association to react against these kinds of depredations and
make sure that they don't continue to dominate the Libertarian Party.
And I will mention one more example, which is the
Green Party. So the Green Party does include many people

(40:13):
who are earnestly concerned about environmental protection, who want to
see cleaner air, cleaner water, less pollution, cleaner food. I
think all of these are admirable. Especially with the progress
of science and technology, we can reach many of these
goals effectively. But there is a faction within the Green Party,

(40:34):
the radical environmentalists, the deep green neo Malthusians who just
want to tear down civilization, who will try to use
violence in order to stop construction projects like pipelines, for instance,
who think that humanity is a blight on this earth

(40:55):
and deserves to be exterminated, who are for the human
extinction movement, whether through voluntary or other means, and these
people are indeed liable to commit acts of fanatical violence.
And conscientious environmentalists who support the Green Party because they
want cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner food, should resist these

(41:21):
extreme neo mulcusions. So this is incumbent on every political faction,
and I think it is incumbent upon us transhumanists also,
to make sure that we don't allow the vitriolic voices
within our ranks to first of all cast transhumanism in
a negative light, second to tear us apart, third to

(41:45):
dissuade the more civil, calm, reasonable voices within our movement
from speaking up. So I will say this as a
prelude to my discussion of a positive vision of transhumanism,
which I hope that everybody watching this can align on.

(42:10):
And for many of you this may be review, but
I think it's important, nonetheless to discuss it to remind
people of what transhumanism is all about. So the core
message of transhumanism is that through science, technology and reason,
we can push back and remove the obstacles that have

(42:33):
plagued the human condition. And the foremost of these obstacles is,
of course, involuntary death. We should never forget the terrible
toll that death takes. Also diseases, poverty, scarcity of basic needs, war, pollution, tribalism,
which I have mentioned already, and cognitive biases and mob
behaviors from which no group of humans is currently immune

(42:55):
because these are the evolutionary baggage of our species. But
transhumanism as a philosophy is about making life better. Those
are the words of our good friend and biotechnology advisor,
doctor Bill Andrews, and this really is the message to
drive home for the general public. Transhumanism is about making

(43:16):
life better. That's something that we can all agree on,
regardless of our specific political persuasions, and transhumanism is a
big tent. We have tried to accommodate people from the
entire conventional political spectrum as well as people of unconventional
political views. If you share these aspirations to remove these

(43:37):
obstacles that have plagued the human condition, then the nuances
of your political views matter less than your willingness to
help us in these goals. And of course, our three
core ideals are that the Transhumanist Party supports significant life
extension achieved through the progress of science and technology. The
Transhumanist Party supports a cultural, societal, and political atmosphere formed

(44:00):
and animated by reason, science and secular values. And the
Transhumanist Party supports efforts to use science, technology, and rational
discourse to reduce and eliminate various existential risks to the
human species. So these are key aspects of the transhumanist vision.

(44:21):
They are reviewed for most of you, but those of
you tuning in who are new to transhumanism hopefully you
found that beneficial. And I also want to emphasize that
there is an array of key transhumanist technologies that we advocate,
from biotechnology, genetic engineering and life extension, to nanotechnology, artificial intelligence,

(44:44):
space colonization, sea steading, vertical farming, economical alternative energy for instance, solar,
geothermal and nuclear energy, automation of production that can lead
to radical abundance, autonomous and electric vehicles, flying cars, augmented reality, encryption,
technologies of the blockchain and smart contracts, and dows decentralized

(45:08):
autonomous organizations of which we have had many representatives as
guests on our prior salons. Ectogenesis, the technology of artificial
wounds and vaccines against a wider array of diseases. I'm
pleased that there are now mRNA vaccines being trialed against cancer,
for instance, and mRNA vaccines, for all of the controversies

(45:31):
surrounding them, were a truly transhumanist technology. They saved millions
of lives during the early pandemic in particular, and we
shouldn't be ashamed about this technology being developed in record time. Indeed,
I think Donald Trump should trumpet the merits of Operation
Warp Speed to a greater extent and maybe talk some

(45:55):
sense into his followers, because that truly was an un
recedented the accomplishment of getting a life saving technology to
millions of people who would have otherwise died or become
seriously ill. So, now that I've spoken about the transhumanist vision,
what is in particular the role of the Transhumanist Party

(46:18):
and this explicit advocacy of transhumanism that we're engaged in.
So the Overton window is this concept of the range
of views or positions that are considered acceptable in polite society,
essentially a mainstream political discourse. And the Overton window of

(46:41):
possibility currently is not as expensive as we would want
it to be in terms of reforms, even incremental reforms
that could make it easier for all of these areas
of emerging technologies to be developed and to benefit as
many people as possible, including to become more affordable, expands
this Overton window of possibility. In this diagram that I

(47:04):
have here shows transhumanism moving this window upward because we
are the upwing political party and transhumanism does not preclude
other people who are not transhumanists or who do not
want to identify with that term advocating for the same reforms. Indeed,
they can engage in more modest or incremental advocacy, and

(47:28):
because we will have pushed up the Overton window to
such an extent, their advocacy will be seen as moderate
and mainstream by comparison, and as a result, more people
will be receptive to their advocacy, and perhaps we will
get the reforms that we seek. But what do we

(47:49):
need in order to accomplish this? To persevere in this vision?
Steadfastness of purpose is a term that I have used
over the past two and a half years. The good
news is we mostly need to keep doing what we
have been doing, but more consistently, more persistently and at scale.
We need a greater amplification of efforts, and to achieve

(48:11):
this we largely need more advocates who have a strong
work ethic, accurate understandings of our movement, and willingness to learn.
What we do not need is to rebrand or use
bland names, because every few years, somebody comes along proposing
a more bland name, and that name doesn't really gain traction,
or it just gets reinterpreted as transhumanism. Anyway, we do

(48:35):
not need to worry about ignorant people thinking that the
prefix trans could only refer to transgenderism, as if everybody
who wrote on the Transcontinental Railroad change their gender, or
to transcend means to change gender. So I think people
really need to think more about etymology and how words

(48:58):
come about and and not just focus on essentially sound
bites from the media. Not that we're opposed to transgenderism.
We support the rights of transgender people, and we've had
conversations about some connections between what transgender people are pursuing

(49:20):
for themselves in terms of their bodily autonomy and the
aspirations that transhumanists have in a much broader sense toward
morphological freedom for all humans. But transhumanism is not equal
to transgenderism, and we do not need to fear controversy

(49:40):
or debate as long as we adhere to our principles
and behave with impeccable integrity. This is where I think
it's essential that we articulate that we are different, that
we do not stoop to the low brow tactics, the
mud slinging, the ad hominem attacks that characterize so much
of the political discourse today. And I will say we

(50:01):
actually managed to carry this out reasonably well, not perfectly
throughout the years, but even during our very contentious twenty
nineteen primary season. If you watch our presidential debates, including
two candidates who are particularly acrimonious in those debates, they
still behave very civilly compared to Donald Trump and Joe

(50:25):
Biden in the twenty twenty presidential debate that they had.
So there's something about transhumanism that enabled us to have
better decorum even among people who exhibited less decorum than
the rest of us. Also, we do not need to
tone down our ambitions in order to satisfy institutional gatekeepers.

(50:46):
The fact is the people who make decisions on the
part of mainstream institutions right now, they're going to see
through any sort of softened statement of ambitions and they're
still going to say, oh, these people are transhumanists, they
want radical life extension, and they want all of these
other cutting edge technologies. We might as well be honest

(51:07):
with them about what we want and respect their intelligence.
And try to persuade them that these are good goals
to have. Now, transhumanism, I think is the best term
for our broader philosophy and movement. We need to lean
into that name recognition, and there's not really a widespread
hostile reception of the term. Contrary to some transhumanist perceptions. However,

(51:31):
there is still a widespread unawareness among the general public,
and that's understandable. Most people have their own day to
day lives and concerns, and a lot of people are
struggling financially. There is an affordability crisis right now in
the United States that politicians ignore to their peril. So rebranding,
in my view, as counterproductive. Instead, more overt transhumanist advocacy

(51:56):
and activism are key because we need to be the
ones to define what transhumanism means. We cannot let the
ignorant or the malicious define what transhumanism means. And at
the same time, we need to combat misrepresentations. I mentioned
malicious attempts to define transhumanism well. Major media and alt

(52:18):
right conspiracy media both often ignore the respectable transhumanists while
focusing on sensationalism and intentional misrepresentation of transhumanism to foment scandal.
There have been attributions of transhumanist sentiments or ideas to
people who are not transhumanists by any stretch of the imagination,

(52:40):
and some of these people have committed nefarious deeds, deeds
that we condemn wholeheartedly. Our major task is to combat
these misrepresentations, and to do that head on, as Luis
Arroyo pointed out in our chat, because if we the
seed ground on the term transhumanism than any other terms

(53:03):
we use, will eventually fall prey to the same hostile
tactics unless we defeat those tactics themselves. But we do
have vulnerabilities in our movement, and there are a lot
of companies now startups that are pursuing longevity and that
are pursuing other areas of emerging technologies that we care
about as well. Many more such companies exist now than

(53:25):
did a decade ago, but a lot of them are failing.
Unity Biotechnology, for instance, has essentially closed down. It was
a multi billion dollar company at one point, but it
had a failed clinical trial and it didn't recover from it.
So companies can run out of funding, experiments and trials

(53:48):
can fail, and the fundraising landscape for research, especially into longevity,
has been increasingly difficult since twenty twenty one for a
variety of reasons. But I have observed that firsthand because
I try to understand where various longevity focused research organizations,

(54:10):
especially nonprofits, are, and I am seeing the funding unfortunately
drying up. And we know individual key figures in the movement,
figures who have contributed a lot to push it forward.
It can suffer disgrace and often undeservedly. So cancel culture
is a very real phenomenon, and I have personally endeavored

(54:31):
to help certain victims of cancel culture who were targeted
for let's say, ulterior motives without actually having committed the
transgression they were accused of committing. People's financial limitations and
setbacks can hinder them from working for longer term goals
of our movement. The fact is most of us need

(54:52):
to make a living, most of us need to have
day jobs. Most of us have serious constraints, especially mon tarily,
but also sometimes in terms of the time that they
can dedicate. So I would encourage if you have some
sort of asset, if you have some spare time, please
use it to help advance our movement, but use it

(55:15):
to the extent that you have it, so you don't
need to sacrifice your own life, your own wellbeing. That's
not what we're about. We're about doing what we can
however we can when we can. And at the same time,
we have to be vigilant because hostile takeovers of organizations
such as entryism by those with ulterior motives and agendas,

(55:37):
especially representatives of more prominent ideologies with better developed propaganda networks,
can derail otherwise promising initiatives. I've seen various attempts over
the years to hijack the transhumanist movement, particular organizations, even
the USTP, in service of goals that we do not hold.

(55:58):
And by the way, thank you to Alan Crowley for
your generous support. Allen says doing what I can. Indeed,
we greatly appreciate it. And finally, I wanted to discuss
briefly my theory of change. This was one of the
areas of conversation at Vitalist Bay. Essentially, for those of

(56:20):
us who are longevists vitalists who want to see radical
or in definite life extension, how do we think that's
likely to come about? What actions are likely to make
a meaningful difference. Because there are many possible theories of change.
Some of them are complementary, some of them may even
be at odds with one another. So my theory of

(56:42):
change that I have thought about for many years is
that a persistent core facilitates steady progress. We need a
stable core organization in our movement that can freely engage
in advocacy without fear of stakeholder vito. So stakeholder vas
could be say in a corporation, the CEO can be fired,

(57:07):
or a manager can be fired, and sometimes, let's say activists,
shareholders can fire CEOs who venture too far outside the
premise of just maximizing quarterly returns, irrespective of future consequences.
So a CEO may be a reasonable person, may actually

(57:30):
want to do a bit of good in regard to
that company's operations, or to not be evil. As the
former motto of Google stated, I wonder why they got
rid of it. But the shareholders, the activists, shareholders with
large concentrated stakes, or the board of directors could fire

(57:53):
that CEO and so that CEO is beholden to the stakeholders.
Or the CEO of a startup could beholden to more
conventionally minded venture capitalists. Or say, a political appointee can
be fired by a higher level political official, and that
higher level political official could be influenced by lobbyists who

(58:14):
might not like what that political appointee is doing. So
we need some sort of way in an organization to
insulate key figures from stakeholder veto if we want them
to last for a long time period and engaged in
long term advocacy with a long term orientation and without

(58:37):
power struggles. Because power struggles are greatly consuming of time
and of resources, and we don't have those we are
not a well resourced movement at this time. Then this
organization needs to be able to run on a minimal
budget and with volunteer efforts to avoid the so called
startup runway problem. The startup runway problem is that the

(58:59):
startup has some ambitious goals, it has some initial funding,
and it can operate with that funding for a few months,
but it has a very high bird rate, and once
the startup has that kind of funding, there's a temptation
to spend it in some manner at some rate that
may not be replenished by future influxes of funds, and

(59:20):
those startup founders often have to appeal to venture capitalists,
for instance, to keep them afloat, but they have to
make certain compromises to the venture capitalists, like, for instance,
pivoting away from longevity research toward more mainstream disease specific research.
So we need an organization that's immune from those pressures.

(59:42):
We need to articulate the broader vision of the future
we wish to attain. Again, it's a longer term orientation.
It's not about near term wins. It's not about the
quarterly bottom line. It's not about winning the next election,
even though we should participate in elections. But primarily we
need to serve as a beacon and inspiration for others

(01:00:03):
to join the movement. So the fact that there is
a transhumanist party, that it's stable, that it has existed
for over eleven years now, that should inspire people. And
if we can just keep it up, then other people,
other organizations will join the movement and they'll have their
specific mission. So we are not a business, we're not
a nonprofit organization. We don't do research ourselves, but we

(01:00:24):
can support the organizations that do. We can support them
by giving them a platform we can support them by
promoting their initiatives. We can support them by giving them
advice and encouragement and helping their key figures when those
key figures come under attack unjustly. And we will serve
hopefully as a refuge and defense for those in the

(01:00:47):
movement who experience setbacks, because let's face it, everybody experience
the setbacks from time to time, and it's good when
you experience a setback to have someone who has your back.
And I'd like to thank some more of our members
who have our back. So Jennifer Hues, thank you very
much for your contribution, and Daniel Tweed as well, thank

(01:01:10):
you so much, he writes SMILE for our future space
Migration Intelligence Squared and then Life Extension. So thank you Daniel,
and please correct any misunderstandings of that acronym if I
made them. But your contributions are greatly appreciated. And also

(01:01:32):
thank you to Luisa Royo for your good words about
our use of generative AI. These images are pretty good,
so I hope that this gave you the kind of
overview of the vision of transhumanism and where I see
the role of the Transhumanist Party as being. This has

(01:01:54):
been a bit of a deep dive in terms of
the chairman's anniversary message. But now we have about fifty
minutes for our question and answer session, and I will
address two questions that came in early. Then we will
go to our panel, and then we will go to
our YouTube audience. So the first question comes from Ben Balweg,

(01:02:18):
who is our director of Longevity Outreach. He couldn't join
us today, but he submitted this question. He writes, the
USTP has many planks voted on by its members. It's
highly unlikely that any member, including US chairman, voted for
the winning plank every single time. That is correct. Which
plank do you have the hardest time supporting as chairman

(01:02:38):
and why? And it's true. We have now one hundred
and twenty five sections in our platform. Many of the
wordings were proposed by other individuals. Sometimes I agree with them,
sometimes I disagree with them, but we will abide by
the decision of the members. So I've given this some thought,

(01:03:03):
and I think the platform section where I have the
greatest disagreement personally as chairman is section fifty. Now, Section
fifty is quite extensive, so I have displayed it on
the screen here and I don't disagree with all of
section fifty. I disagree with portions of section fifty. So

(01:03:26):
the section reads the United States Transhumanist Party supports the
autonomy of an individual to decide on the continuation of
that individual's own life, including the right to choose or
not to choose life extending medical treatments, and actually, so far,
so good in principle, I would agree with that statement.
The United States does not consider it practicable or desirable

(01:03:47):
for suicide to be illegal, but discourages suicide from a
moral standpoint, and furthermore, considers that the legal right of
suicide should only pertain to the individual and should not
extend any euthanasia or direct administration of a life ending
substance or procedure by any other person. The United States
Transhumanist Party has grave concerns with anybody but the individual

(01:04:10):
acting to hasten the end of that individual's life. So
this platform plank has some cautionary wording, and it does
express the morality of continuing to live, of making the
choice to continue to live. Later on, the plank does

(01:04:31):
say the United States Transhumanist Party supports the ability of
a patient to receive a prescription for a life ending
substance which should only be provided as an incidental service
by a patient's primary care physician with the express written
consent of at least one unaffiliated physician, and the substance

(01:04:51):
in question should only be allowed to be self administered
by the patient directly after a predefined time period since
the obtaining of the prescription, and once that substances prescribed,
no medical practitioner should be permitted to benefit financially based
on any specific choice of the patient to self administer
the substance to end the patient's life. So there is

(01:05:12):
a lot of wording in that plank to try to
prevent the so called slippery slope, to try to prevent
the possibility of people being steered into these kinds of decisions,
whether by family members, by medical practitioners, by health insurers,
by activists, anybody who's trying to, for instance, save money

(01:05:32):
on somebody's end of life medical care, or who is
trying to make an ideological statement like redefine how people
approach life and death adopt a more say existential hedonist perspective.
Existential hedonism is the idea that you should essentially enjoy life,

(01:05:52):
try to get fulfillment from it while it's good, but
once it stops being enjoyable, that worldview is much friendlier
towards an individual just deciding to end it, and that
is not my view at all. So existential hedonism is
contrasted with longevism or vitalism, or I would say even transhumanism,

(01:06:15):
at least as I interpret it, in that those latter
three consider life to be the ultimate good, even if
it's hard, even if it's not pleasurable all the time,
it can still be meaningful, even if you're in pain,
even if you're suffering greatly, there is still some value
to life. And I understand the position of advocates who say, well,

(01:06:37):
what if somebody's terminally ill, what if they're in horrific
pain and it is just very difficult to bear that,
and there may be ways to alleviate that pain without
going so far as killing that individual. But I just
think it's very dangerous because once that precedent is set,
even with safeguards, there will be people trying to erode

(01:06:59):
those safeguards. Indeed, I had a debate with Grayson Quake,
who is an anti transhumanist. Fairly, let's say Fearce anti transhumanist,
But he actually read the USTP platform, and he read
a lot of my writings, and he essentially characterized this
section fifty of our platform as an example of why transhumanism,

(01:07:24):
in his view, is a pro death philosophy, and I
had to correct him and say, no, there are all
of these caveats, all of these safeguards, and he still
considered them to be insufficient. So again, this is what
our platform reads, and this is what the Transhumanist Party
will adhere to. Personally, I still think there's a vulnerability there,

(01:07:44):
of a slippery slope, and how can we combat that,
especially looking at examples of countries that have legalized assistant suicide,
and unfortunately, I think there are astonishingly many people resorting
to that as an option. How can we persuade them
to choose life? So that is my answer as to
where I personally differ from certain parts of the USTP platform. Now,

(01:08:10):
Michae Lazine also has a question, and he submitted it early.
What timeframe do I see synthetics or androids becoming a reality?
If ever? So that's interesting because essentially an android as
I would see it, if you use, for instance, mister
data from Star trek as An example would be a
humanoid robot that convincingly acts as essentially a fully interactive being.

(01:08:41):
Whether or not there's inner sentience or awareness or consciousness
is a more difficult question to answer. But I think
you could have a humanoid robot that interacts with you
and can hold a conversation with you, and you might
at times be persuaded that it's sentient, So it might

(01:09:02):
pass the Turing test within the next ten years. So
if you think about it, the equipment is already there.
There are humanoid robots coming online. They can do backflips,
they can fold laundry. They're not perfect yet, but in
a few years the capabilities will be greatly improved. And
then you have large language models, again not perfect. They

(01:09:26):
can hallucinate, they can make mistakes. Sometimes they will reveal
that they are ais. But if you integrate a large
language model with a humanoid robot, and you let that
entity walk around and interact with you, and you dress
it up in sufficiently humanoid garb, some people might be

(01:09:47):
persuaded that it's a human. So I would say within
the next ten years that the very plausible outcome that
we will have synthetic beings where androids walking among us,
and there will be a large societal debate us to
whether they're sentient, whether they should have rights, and what
the defining criteria would be for those rights. So I

(01:10:10):
hope that answered your question, Mike, and now let's go
to ard Ramone. Any question for me.

Speaker 2 (01:10:21):
I'd say probably I don't remember if it's a gift before,
but uplifting of animals probably the one I would have
the most issue with because what if someone Christopher's retrovirus
that infects the rat population, they all become super intelligent
like the secrets of them.

Speaker 3 (01:10:40):
And decide to take over a planet like planets of
the rats, and then you know, out populate us and
eventually formed their own cities. And I think that would
be problematic.

Speaker 4 (01:10:54):
Lifted animals would be problematic, even more so than synthetics
because animals have a hidency of becoming uh you know
how populating like the power we have with the wild
patron out here in the States.

Speaker 5 (01:11:09):
So uh, that's one concern of mine. The other concern
is I just just head in my head get a
concerned would be.

Speaker 3 (01:11:22):
Uh that's it for now.

Speaker 4 (01:11:24):
I have to remember what what el supposed think about.

Speaker 1 (01:11:27):
All right, Well, thank you R. Tramona. I'll answer your
first question. If your second concern comes to mind again,
please okay.

Speaker 3 (01:11:37):
Of interest vegans, vegan entrious.

Speaker 4 (01:11:41):
I'm like, you know, I've had a few issues with
vegans in the past, and uh.

Speaker 3 (01:11:46):
You know, I'm great. If you want to be a vegan, great,
don't force it on me. And I think I've noticed
some vegans trying to be a bit entious in the
transhumitist movement, so that that's been a concern of mine.

Speaker 1 (01:12:00):
Yeah about it, Yes, thank you for that concern. So
actually the two are quite related. So how do we
treat uplifted animals? How do we approach that possibility? And
is there a risk of vegan entryism? I'm reminded of
the joke, well, how do you know that someone is
a vegan? The answer is they'll tell you. And there

(01:12:22):
are a lot of transhumanists who are vegans, and I
think those tend to be vegans for health reasons primarily.
Like I know doctor Bill Andrews, he's an ultra marathon
runner too, but he is a vegan and he adheres
to that diet and it seems to work for him.

(01:12:44):
I am not a vegan myself, and I don't think
there's a requirement of veganism to be a transhumanist. I
think there is still a serious question about the extent
to which somebody can and avoid eating animal products and
maintain good health in all respects. Some people swear by

(01:13:07):
the assertion that they could, other people doubt them. Some
people adhere to a paleo diet, which is the other extreme.
And again the question of to what extent that impacts
longevity is unanswered at this time, at least it's not
fully resolved. So I think we need to have tolerance

(01:13:28):
as to people's dietary preference. We don't want to create
a litmus test that alienates people who are in support
of a better future for humanity. Now that being said,
if I had a choice between eating meat that involved
killing an animal and eating meat that's biologically identical that

(01:13:49):
doesn't involve killing an animal, I would make the second choice,
even if it costs more money. So I think it
is ethically imperative to advocate for lab grown meat and
for us as omnivores, in the fullness of time, to
transition away from killing animals for the eating of meat.

(01:14:10):
And I think with regard to uplifting animals. So our
transhumanist Bill of Rights discusses the criteria for sentience and
being a sentient entity and being worthy of rights. So
we're not necessarily saying in that transhumanist Bill of rights
that we should uplift animals. We're saying, if uplifted animals

(01:14:32):
come to be, and they achieve this level five information
integration that qualifies them to be a sentient entity, then
their rights would be respected. Now, I think there are
certain situations in which it might be reasonable for there
to be uplifted animals. For instance, very long lived species

(01:14:55):
like giant tortoises for example, why shouldn't they be uplifted?
Or whales for instance? And those species could have not
just the genetics of greater longevity, but perhaps some insights
from life experience. What kind of life experience does a
very long lived tortoise have that could be useful to us?

(01:15:18):
But I've actually been thinking, and if anybody beats me
to this, that's perfectly fine. What if generative AI could
be used to create a video from the vantage point
of a future philosopher several centuries hence, who is an
uplifted animal like an uplifted sheep, and sheep of course

(01:15:39):
have a kind of nuanced relationship with humanity. Not all sheep,
by far used for food. Many are just used for
wool or for say, grooming grass to reduce the risk
of wildfire. So not all sheep are mistreated. So how
would that uplifted sheep philosopher reflect on humanity's treatment of

(01:16:03):
sheep and the fact that humans uplifted the sheep too,
So humans put this philosopher in the position where he
could philosophize. I think again, these are very fascinating questions
that we're going to have to delve into. I am
not one post to uplifting animals. I think it would
be tragic to uplift mice or rats or any species

(01:16:23):
that live fast and die young, because they'll be aware
of how brief and finite their life expectancies are. Also,
Aubrey de Gray has been on record saying he thinks
that longevity escape velocity can be attained for humans. It
might be attainable for dogs or cats, but not really
for mice or rats because they just don't live long enough.

(01:16:44):
So hopefully that answered your questions are tremont and now
let's go on to Alan for his question, Alan, I
think you need to me.

Speaker 3 (01:16:58):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:17:00):
Yeah.

Speaker 7 (01:17:00):
My question is to what extent do we feel obligated
to build separate societal structures. Do we need our own
land management system based on watersheds? Do we need our
own communication system based on ham radio or internet or

(01:17:21):
dark net or something else. I mean, what, what, in
your opinion can the can the USTP put into place,
Let's say, over the next nine years, because you'll be
you'll be in there for another thirty six or something.
But over the next nine years, what institutions benefits to

(01:17:46):
society can we provide to society without I don't know,
just forcing society. I mean, you know, not not through coercion,
but through example. What can societal structures do you feel
like we can build over the next nine years.

Speaker 1 (01:18:04):
Yes, And I think that's a good question. Now, I
don't think that transhumanists should go into let's say, full
fledged survivalist mode and try to build entire autonomous networks
that could, for instance, withstand a nuclear war or the

(01:18:24):
breakdown of civilization, riots in the streets, et cetera. The
fact is, there are just not that many of us
who explicitly identify as transhumanists, and we're all geographically dispersed.

Speaker 7 (01:18:38):
Go ahead on and clarify. My idea is just to
keep you keep you from going down a different road there,
because I think you're on a good road and I
want to get you back on the rough road. The
uh yeah, I don't foresee this as like, oh, we
create our own you know, USTP phone, and you buy
into USTP phone minutes and you know it gets a
whole different system. I'm just a just in like this

(01:19:02):
is a good example of US USTP party. People have
been gathering on Sundays or Saturdays or Fridays for a
couple of millennia now, so having us gather on Sundays
is a great it's a great adjunct. Right, we're putting
a new thing or we're bringing in so what kind
of like parallel Like that's a parallel structure. I mean,

(01:19:24):
eventually everybody that tunes into Megachurch on Sunday could tune
into the USTP enlightenments along. I'm not sure it's gonna
happen time soon, but but just not not necessarily, like
you say, to replace civilization in the case of a
nuclear you know, all the cost or whatever they you know,
the apocalypse. I'm not talking about running border town, but

(01:19:48):
just enough of a change of pace and the way
we do things that other people go, Oh, that's a
good idea, like maybe we should incorporate a little bit
of that, a little bit of if we go a
little justice fare and as whatever technological uplifting will be
great for people more we do animals.

Speaker 1 (01:20:08):
Yes, And I think you're speaking to essentially establishing internal
community norms and practices and institutions that have some parallels
with more mainstream or historic institutions, but also differ in
key ways. And the virtual enlightenments one is actually a

(01:20:29):
good example. We have our Sunday live streams that provide
a sense of community, that provide this direct engagement, and
churches do that too. And one of the major benefits
of churches is not in the religious ideology. It's in
the creation of a social network of people who will

(01:20:50):
support one another or share ideas or share opportunities. And
I think this is why the overwhelming majority of people
in the world world remain religious. It's not that they
have hardline ideological convictions. They're not theological fundamentalists for the
most part, but they see these religious institutions as the

(01:21:11):
only source of community that they could find. So if
there are other sources of community that work just as
well or better in that aspect but don't have the
religious ideology, that's one way that we could win additional followers.
So one observation, of course, this has been made over

(01:21:33):
the course of decades now, and I documented it when
I essentially looked at our first one thousand members and
the distribution by gender. We're about eighty five percent male
fifteen percent female. And I would say the reason for
that is in terms of the distribution of traits. Evolutionarily,

(01:21:56):
this makes sense. Among males, there is a greater proclivity
of just going it alone, perhaps venturing out, building one's
own thing, or essentially coming up with one's own solutions
to problems. Now some women do that too, but they're
more along the lines of statistical outliers, so they're more

(01:22:18):
on that right tail of the distribution, whereas for males,
there are a lot of males who think that way.
But if there is more of a community type of atmosphere,
where there are institutions that are more supportive of individual members,
where there are networks that have your back as I

(01:22:40):
mentioned that could actually draw more women in and that
could actually lead to transhumanist demographics being more representative of
the general population, which is an outcome that we should want,
but it's not easy. We have to think about, essentially,
in what ways do we want to replicate what other

(01:23:03):
institutions are doing, and in what ways do we want
to stand out. So I would say that is something
to think about that is important. But to some extent,
we are going to be building a transhumanist culture that
is involved with the mainstream culture, that is in dialogue

(01:23:24):
and intention sometimes with the mainstream culture, but also has
some of these distinctive elements that would hopefully make it
more attractive. So thank you for that question, and now
let's hear from Daniel Tweed.

Speaker 8 (01:23:41):
Well, congratulations on nine years and being a great chairman
and being part of a great movement, which is I
think about bringing evolution to a more conscious state. And
when things get to a more conscious state, they have
greater connectivity and they have greater access to resources, all

(01:24:03):
the things that so far what life tries to do.
Although you know, we have to ask are we the
best evolutionary substrate for not letting the light of consciousness
become extinguished, and that's a question that you know, is
kind of up in the air. I mean, we are
on the verge of you know, artificial general intelligence, which

(01:24:28):
is going to want all the rights that we want
and probably some we haven't thought of. So I mean,
you know, do we welcome our robot overlords step aside
gracely from the stage of evolution. I don't know, but
I'm glad these debates are being thought about by thoughtful people,
and that's why I'm glad to be part of this

(01:24:50):
philosophical movement. But I think, you know, there's a critical
mass of about one hundred billion neurons to get a brain,
and some have speculated, like the book The Millennial Project,
that once we get to one hundred billion humans, we
will become sort of a macro brain, and we could

(01:25:10):
do that quite easily just by accessing the resources of
the solar systems. There's actually once we get to the
Orc cloud and the Kuiper Belt and turn all that
into burnal spheres or whatever kind of habitat is best,
you know, we're going to be really a Kardashiv level
of evolution. So I guess there's a party called open

(01:25:33):
source party. I think Guy ran in England and they
have an interesting method. It's it's kind of like GitHub,
where everyone has one hundred percent veto power, you know,
the code base only proceeds by one hundred percent consensus.
And I wonder if we could start a fork of
the transhumanist movement with you know, writing the code for

(01:25:55):
the next phase of evolution in a similar kind of way,
where it's open source and we don't add to the
code base until there's unanimous agreement. I mean, I'm pretty
sure there's a lot enough we would agree upon unanimously
that it wouldn't be a terrible idea. So, but you know,
we need to have universal communication. I'm a fan of

(01:26:20):
you know, well, English is the universal language of aviation,
and amateur radio is a worldwide hobby, so that's a
good start. But there are languages that are easier to
learn than English, so that we should probably take another
look at Esperano and Toki ponu and just visual based languages.
You know that use like like Chinese is very based

(01:26:43):
on visually recognizable patterns. So I don't know if there's
a question in there, but I just wish we could
get the same urgency that we apply to the first
response and apply that to preventing mass extinction. And I
guess if we could do that with distributed sovereignty and
open source consensus, that would be great. So I guess

(01:27:08):
I'll just end my plane thought playing there and see
if there's any comments.

Speaker 1 (01:27:13):
Yes, thank you very much Daniel for your commentary, and
I do see some questions in it. So first of all,
on the question of decision making by consensus. So in
my experience, and I think given how human minds work,
it's possible to have consensus if you're in a sufficiently

(01:27:34):
small group like five people can reach consensus on something,
especially if they have prior inclinations, similar ways of thinking
or viewing the world, or similar backgrounds and experiences. You could,
with some effort, get consensus among fifteen people, but you're
likely to have a holdout or two who may not

(01:27:56):
be that far off from what the consensus might be,
but they may quipple about a few points. If you
have a significantly larger group, it's virtually impossible to get
a consensus on everything, and even the leaders of that
group would not be able to get the other members

(01:28:17):
to agree to everything that those leaders want to do,
and that's why voting evolved as a mechanism of trying
to reach an understanding even if not everybody agrees. So
we do have some of that in the US Transhumanist Party.
Now there's also a question of what do we try

(01:28:41):
to get consensus on and how important is urgency versus say, representativeness. So,
for instance, if there is some sort of crisis, you
may not have time to get all the people together
and get them to decide, oh, I want this or not.

(01:29:02):
On the other hand, if they're say an open source
software project and maybe a lot of people rely on it.
Maybe it's a blockchain based project like the protocol for
a cryptocurrency or a smart contract, and a lot of
people do rely on it and expect it to be stable.
So in the former case, some action needs to be

(01:29:23):
taken quickly or else a bad consequence will ensue from
in action. In that case, I don't think consensus decision
making is really viable. Sometimes you do just need one
person to make the decision. Hence we have the proposals
that have been enacted in our platform for emergency declarations
by the Chairman. On the other hand, if you have

(01:29:44):
something that's largely stable, that largely works, that people largely
rely on. Then I can see how tweaks to that
should require consensus. Like, if you are an investor in
bitcoin or doge coin, or or whatever the case may be,
you don't want that to change lightly. You don't want

(01:30:04):
the definition of that coin or the criteria for mining
that coin or otherwise acquiring it to change just because
fifty one percent of the token holders would want it
to change. So I would say there's room to essentially
experiment and figure out what level of consensus or other

(01:30:28):
kind of collective decision making could be viable in a
particular situation. Now, your other point is, are we the
best substrate for carrying forward the light of consciousness? Well,
I would say, from a self interested perspective, I am
conscious right now, and I would like to continue to
be conscious. Whether or not I am the best being,

(01:30:52):
or the most capable being or the most powerful being,
that doesn't matter so much to me. So I would
happily exist in a world world of myriad intelligences that
are smarter, better, more capable than I am, as long
as I'm allowed to exist in that world and hopefully
benefit from what those other intelligences are bringing forth. So

(01:31:14):
even among humans, I'm happy to be the least intelligent,
least accomplished person in the room as long as the
others respect my right to be there, to exist and
I can benefit in some way. So in the future,
if super intelligence has arrived at if there are super
intelligent day eyes who are not integrated with humans for

(01:31:36):
whatever reason, who are their own autonomous entities, then that's
fine as long as they respect our rights to exist.
And as I've said previously, greater intelligence at least correlates
with greater morality. It doesn't guarantee greater morality. But more
intelligent beings are more capable of nuance and they're more

(01:31:58):
capable of seeing a greater multiplicity of solutions. So it's
not just you have to pay this heavy cost or
that heavy cost, which is what binary alternatives lock us into,
but rather if you see a spectrum of possible solutions,
a way to navigate through a challenging situation, the more

(01:32:19):
brain power you have or other sorts of intellect you have,
the easier it is for you to come up with
a solution that accommodates the rights and wellbeing of all entities.
And I think there's room in the future for humans
to coexist with other sentient entities. That is the purpose

(01:32:39):
of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights. So thank you for
those questions and observations, and now let's go on to
some other questions and comments from our YouTube audience. Luis
or royal rights start where you are, use what you
have and do what you can. Thank you, Louise. I
agree with that. And Jennifer Hues wonders, do we have

(01:33:02):
a list of projects that people can contribute to. We
have started that list. It's not comprehensive at this point
because the last time it was updated was in twenty twenty.
But Dan Elton on the US Transhumanist Party website has

(01:33:22):
a link to US Transhumanist Party action Items for new members,
and it's a fairly basic list. I do think we
need to enhance that list, but this is a start.
And I will also say here's the list, by the way,
that there are other projects, like, for instance, contributing to thhpdia,

(01:33:47):
which is the free online transhumanist encyclopedia that I will
link to as well, that would be part of those
action items. Because thchpdia is about essentially cataloging the history
key people, key ideas, key events within the US Transhumanist

(01:34:12):
Party and the transhumanist movement more broadly. So if you
would like to help us edit thchpdia, please let me know,
send me an email and I will set you up
with an account, or let me know in the chat
and Mike Lazine mentions the transhuman Club and the link
to that is transhuman dot club. I really do hope

(01:34:36):
that the Transhuman Club will receive more participation, more engagement.
I think it's a better format than a lot of
social media sites because it's like a more old fashioned
forum where the posts are public, so there's not as
much of an echo chamber, and people can engage with
content that was posted a long time ago, so everything

(01:34:59):
doesn't get bare read in a social media feed. So
now we have a question. This is from Scarlet zanarkand
so she asks what do you see as more viable
in the long term for longevity and morphological freedom changing
the body we're born with, or mind or brain transfer.

(01:35:21):
I think changing the body should be easier because there
are already ways of doing it, so for example, through prosthetics,
through organ transplants, through artificial organs, or say hearing aids.
Hearing aids are very common, or say pacemakers. I think

(01:35:44):
it is easier to change the body because transferring the
entire mind to a different substrate requires a comprehensive knowledge
of how the brain works, how consciousness arises, what connection,
what prerequisites you really need to preserve and maintain in

(01:36:05):
that new system in order for it to function well.
So I would say incremental modifications to the body are
going to be the way to go for a long time,
and that would include, for instance, rejuvenation treatments, so they
don't have to be like artificial replacements. They could be
ways to modify one's biology through a gene therapy or

(01:36:31):
a drug. And I think that in the near term
is how we're going to be able to prolong our lives.
But I do grant the possibility that there could be
some sort of substrate other than a biological substrate that
could host a mind in the future. And again, if

(01:36:52):
the process from getting from here to there is sufficiently gradual,
then we might be able to do it and preserve
what I call the inus, the subjective continuity. Like if
we replace one biological neuron at a time with an
artificial neuron. So thank you for that question, and now

(01:37:17):
we will continue on with comments from our viewers. So
Jason Geringer writes, we've got futurism in the bag, we
should focus more on today's issues like affordability and healthcare.
And I think that's a good observation in the sense
that affordability seems to be the major issue in contemporary politics.

(01:37:40):
If you want to see which party will lose the election,
it will be the incumbent political party, no matter what
the official branding or platform of that party is. In
an inflationary time period when people are feeling strained pressured
by the high costs of living, so we do need

(01:38:02):
to talk more about how transhumanist technologies can help to
create radical abundance to really alleviate these affordability challenges that
people have and make healthcare more affordable. Of course, to
make health care more affordable, you need policy solutions as
well as technological advancement. For instance, getting rid of the
certificate of need laws that prevent new hospital construction, getting

(01:38:26):
rid of a lot of unnecessary patents that are granted
on substances that were previously in the public domain, lowering
the costs to getting a drug or therapy through FDA
clinical trials. So I think all of those are very important.
Daniel Tweetwright's transhumanism brought to you by intelligent evolution, and

(01:38:46):
indeed this is about essentially putting evolution into our own hands.
And I think right now it would be a good
bridge into song that we actually have prepared by our
friend Bill Skywatcher, who is our producer for a KGRA Radio.
And I want to say a good word about KGRA

(01:39:09):
Radio because we have been in partnership with them for
now over four years and unfailingly every Sunday we have
had a slot, our one hour and fifty four minute
slot for the Virtual Enlightenment Salons, and Bill has always
been there behind the scenes, extremely responsive, extremely helpful, any

(01:39:30):
little technical nuance he assisted us with, and our partnership
with KGRA has brought us to many other platforms. That's
how we're able to simulcast to x formerly Twitter, to Facebook,
to Rumble, to other platforms as well audio only platforms.
There's a KGRA Radio online which is carrying the audio

(01:39:54):
version of the stream. We're syndicated. We have the ability
of our viewers to listen to us on Amazon on Spotify,
on Spreaker. All of this is because of Bill Skywatcher
and what Bill created as a song called the Advancement
of Humanity. So we're going to play that song, and

(01:40:16):
while we play it, I'm also going to show you
a work of generative AI art, the Transhumanist Tower, to
celebrate the ninth anniversary of my chairman position. So as
I show that our Hormona, if you could play the
Advancement of Humanity please.

Speaker 9 (01:41:18):
Earth.

Speaker 10 (01:41:19):
Evolution is outdated, tribalisms are form, Wars and disease spread
their toxicity. Planet slowly warms, flaws of human condition and
need for hope and prosperity, science and technology advancements.

Speaker 9 (01:41:40):
For humanity.

Speaker 10 (01:41:46):
Regardless of political views.

Speaker 11 (01:41:49):
The path forward is clear.

Speaker 8 (01:41:52):
Global unity free.

Speaker 11 (01:41:53):
Of barriers, transpartis and future is near, creating solutions with
police scenes, improving the human condition, achieving a new course
in evolution, a.

Speaker 12 (01:42:06):
Bright future for civilization, significant life extension, progress of sciencenology.

Speaker 6 (01:42:17):
Cultural societal acceptance PNEO for all humanity ptroduced to our species,
removal of wars and disease. Achieve this through transhumanism for
human kin and.

Speaker 9 (01:42:33):
By individual privacy and liberty tolerance and inclusivity.

Speaker 13 (01:42:51):
Technology used for progress, improve the human condition, opposition of
nucleo weapons see multilateral propishan environment preserved through science of
species tried collectively evolving through genetics. Society is born, respectively,

(01:43:14):
a new age for the ecosystem, endanger life stimulated in
rebirth of transhumanists set the course a new age sign
Camelite extension, the ruggers of science.

Speaker 6 (01:43:32):
And technology, Cultural and societal acceptance.

Speaker 12 (01:43:36):
Colony for all humanity trans produced to us species removal
of wars and disease machinemans through transhumanism of human kind
fine breed.

Speaker 1 (01:44:23):
All right, thank you very much, Bill for composing that song,
the advancement of humanity. This was a world premiere of
that song, and hopefully many more people are going to
hear it. Hopefully it will be released as a single
and we can share it all over social media. I

(01:44:44):
think this is a testament also to how technology has
empowered us and our movement and how much possibility there
is of amplifying our individual skill sets. If we have
a vision for something, if we harness AI properly and wisely,
and we know what we're doing, we can achieve it.

(01:45:06):
And this transhumanist tower is another example. So I am
not a painter. I wouldn't have been able to create
something like that digitally, but with the correct prompt I
think it came out reasonably well. So now let us
proceed to some further questions and comments. We have about

(01:45:26):
nine minutes left, so I will try to address them quickly.
And thank you, by the way for Jason Geringer for
many of his remarks. He notes politics is a difficult
thing to navigate all on its own. It's highly emotional.
People get upset about stuff. That's how I'll read it.

(01:45:48):
It's hard to get people to get along when there's
such a high emotional level. Yes, this is one of
the most difficult realms of human activity because people's passions
get size and being a chairman of a political party
is a really hard job. Thank you Jason for acknowledging that. Now,

(01:46:09):
Jason did say in his comments that he thinks Michelle
Obama's when they go low, we go high doesn't work.
I think it can work on a sufficiently long time
frame and by setting an example for people. So I
understand sometimes it's very difficult to go high and maintain

(01:46:30):
elevated discourse when the other side is just slinging mud
and making false accusations and hurling slurs. But we need
to look at what an impartial observer who is interested
in the truth. However, many of those people are out there. However,
many of them gravitate toward a particular discussion or debate

(01:46:54):
what they would think and especially in the fullness of time,
say five years from now, ten years from now, whom
will they consider to have acted better? Who will they
be drawn toward, who will have more staying power as well?
So I'm not saying we need to just lay down
and take insults or accusations. No, we need to counter

(01:47:16):
them and counter them decisively. But I think there are
ways to do it that are actually more effective. They
have more staying power in the long term. And Jason
says he doesn't think a computer game should cost as
much as LED the game did, especially now with AI
that can code. It's interesting because back say last year,

(01:47:39):
when I attended conferences and I told other attendees, especially entrepreneurs,
how much it cost me to create LV the game.
First of all, I asked them how much would they
expect it to have cost? And they really suggested figures
around several hundred thousand dollars, and when I said cost

(01:48:00):
less than ten thousand dollars, they were quite surprised at
essentially the amount of value that we got. But this
also speaks to how AI has improved coding and allowed
laypersons without training in computer programming or coding to actually
bring these creations into being. And by the way, Bill

(01:48:24):
Skywatcher says that the song the Advancement of Humanity will
be available in a few days everywhere you get music,
So thank you Bill. We look forward to this. And
Daniel Tweet notes it's hard to get a perfect anything,
but let's not let the perfect become the enemy of
the good. That's exactly right. And I think that's the
danger of echo chambers too, because in an echo chamber,

(01:48:47):
people are already primarily surrounded by those who are like minded,
and it's easy to nitpick on the differences rather than
keeping the big picture in mind, which is we are
overwhelmingly aligned and moving in similar directions, at least in
the near term. There are numerous aspects, numerous policies, numerous

(01:49:08):
statements that we can find close to one hundred percent
agreement on, at least for all practical purposes. So Jennifer
huse wrights. I hope Salton wins. That would be a
great timeline shift. Thank you, Jennifer. I agree, that would
be amazing for California, especially because it would break the
logjam of stagnation the California currently experiences. Now, Jason asks,

(01:49:32):
what about Bob from LV the game? So, Bob was
the original character in the first alpha version of LEV
the game, developed by the original team, and there was
the drawing of Bob. I use it in the demonstration
of LEV the game. You can see here meet Bob.

(01:49:52):
Bob has a normal life expectancy of seventy six. So
for the character I played, I didn't want it to
be the same Bob. Wanted him to be a successor
of Bob. So he is Bob the second. Now, Alan asks,
in the course of the conversation, have you read the
book Thinking Fast and Slow. That's by Daniel Kahneman, And

(01:50:14):
that book describes essentially two different thought systems, system one
and system two. And System one is the very quick
almost reflects of one by which we can navigate the
world very quickly, very efficiently, but it uses heuristics, it
uses shortcuts, so it doesn't think through every problem in

(01:50:37):
the same way that we would when we encounter that problem,
and you System two is the very logical, step by step,
deliberative system that comes up with more accurate results. But
with system two you need more time. And ultimately most
of the good ideas, the ideas that drive civilization forward,

(01:50:57):
come from system too. But increasingly in the world today,
we are confined to system one because our lives are
so fast paced, and I think this is the challenge
in the information age. The challenge is how do we
make time for system two? And I think in that

(01:51:18):
sense it's important for individuals not to become too chronically online.
And I think that's a kind of paradoxical expression coming
from a transhumanist who spends a lot of his time online.
But it's important to have a life outside of the Internet.
It's been said that, and this was the case before

(01:51:40):
the pandemic, So it was said that back in two
thousand and four, people used the Internet as a refuge
from the physical world, and in twenty nineteen already people
use the physical world as a refuge from the Internet.
But really what is needed is a refuge from constant
external pressures that lead one to feel that one has

(01:52:01):
to perform right there and then, which of course triggers
the temptation to use system one rather than System two.
We need time to use System two and think about
our actions and our ideas, and then in the future
they might become more readily internalized so we could deploy
them quickly as part of System one as well. Now

(01:52:24):
fascinating question, Francois Joana writes, how long will it take
before we have a Jesus Ai? Well, Zultanichewann wrote about
that too early on among his many editorials during his
first transhumanist campaign for president. I think it's possible to
have a Jesus AI today. Of course, a lot of
people will think of it as sacrilegious because Jesus would

(01:52:45):
essentially be an AI avatar. There are already sites where
you can talk to Elvis or John Lennon or any
of a number of historical figures, and generally there are chatbots.
I know of a company that unfortunately didn't make it,
that try to create video versions of AI avatars. But
I think in the near future there will be the

(01:53:07):
technological capability to create an AI avatar that looks and
talks like at least people's impressions of what Jesus was
like through various historical art or writings. And if you
could talk to Socrates or Aristotle or Cicero, why not

(01:53:28):
be able to talk to Jesus. This would be highly controversial,
and most established churches are going to condemn it and
say this is idolatry, this is not the real Jesus,
what are you doing? But I am sure that some
people will try. And Daniel Tweed writes that Jesus remains
his favorite transhumanist and we have a lot of Christian

(01:53:50):
transhumanists as well, So transhumanism is not limited to any
particular religious or conventional philosophical persuasion. I have co atheist,
but I think it might be interesting to have a
conversation with Ai Jesus. That's just my personal view. So
this has been fascinating. Thank you to everybody who tuned in.

(01:54:12):
Thank you for giving my ninth Chairman's anniversary message fair hearing,
and for your thoughtful questions. I wish I could answer
more of them. I will scan the chat in the
next few days and see which questions I can address
in writing as well, and in the meantime, I hope

(01:54:33):
we can all live long and prosper

Speaker 13 (01:55:00):
Yeah.

All Episodes

Chairman's 9th Anniversary Message and Q&A - Gennady Stolyarov II

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

Are You A Charlotte?

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Chairman's 9th Anniversary Message and Q&A - Gennady Stolyarov II