Hi everyone,

This is my first post on Betterhumans. I look forward to discussing transhumanism with you.

I volunteered on behalf of the Green Party during the recent Canadian federal election, but I was nonetheless dissatisfied with the platforms espoused by the the major parties. Attempting to discuss issues of concern to me as a transhumanist with the political figures and citizens I encountered while petitioning, flyering, and attending rallies got me little more than vacant stares more often than not. I got to thinking about what sort of beast the "Transhuman Party of Canada" would be, and have got loads of notes scribbled on napkins and book margins that need to be organized. I'd appreciate hearing other people's ideas regarding how such a party would position itself philosophically, market itself, what stances it might adopt with respect to particular issues, etc. Of course, all of this will vary given individual political predilections, your national political climate (referring here to the "socialist" leanings of Canada, for instance), and your feelings on transhumanism in general.

I can see such a party opposing or attempting to repeal bio-restrictive legislation that prevents humans from attaining their full potential, or better yet, amplifying that potential in novel ways. It might emphasize the fundamental importance of education, basic scientific research, technology transfer programs, public funding of higher education, etc. I can see such a party establishing novel financial institutions and supporting programs that would legitimate complementary currency systems, e.g. TimeDollars, that reward social service. Then there are questions of environmental policy, foreign affairs, the military (cyborg soldiers?), and so on.

It may or may not come to pass, but if it doesn't, it should--and it's plenty 'o fun to think about in the meantime.

-- crime_minister

Maybe such a thing might work for Canada, with its coalition-building, multiparty parlimentarian, confederal system. It's not really my place to say though since I'm from the States. I think this site's Canadian members should give you some input on this.

I'm skeptical such a thing would work in the States, with its winner-take-all, biparty-consensus-building, congressional, federal system.

There are other political parties in the US. They have made major showings many times in the last 200 years and have recently made gains in local and state elections as election rules slowly change. But what usually happens, when an alternative party makes a major showing in a federal election, is that one or both of the two main parties select and merge the popular political ideas of the alternative party into their own ideology. In the election years that follow, this draws voters away from the alternative party.

Obviously in Canada it works in significantly different ways.

I think you're being a little too quick to dismiss this for the States Mr. Farlops.  Not only are alternative powers gaining strength and popularity in local arenas, but when the big two drive them out of federal elections, they are forced to adopt some of their policies.

Mr. Farlops wrote:
There are other political parties in the US. They have made major showings many times in the last 200 years and have recently made gains in local and state elections as election rules slowly change. But what usually happens, when an alternative party makes a major showing in a federal election, is that one or both of the two main parties select and merge the popular political ideas of the alternative party into their own ideology. In the election years that follow, this draws voters away from the alternative party.

I think for a lot of the parties you describe, having their position co-opted by one of the two ruling parties would be a success in and of itself. There are many single-issue parties in Canada that exist mainly to bring attention to some topic, and perhaps to gain legitimacy in the eyes of citizens and journalists. The first examples that spring to mind are the Marijuana Party (cannabis legalisation) and the Parti Populaire des Putes (Whore's Popular Party; regulation of the sex trade and protection of sex workers, related health issues). I don't think either one plans to control the House of Commons anytime soon, but it's amusing to think of the results if they did. There would certainly be a lot less shouting and a much more relaxed vibe when Parliament was in session, in either case. :)

I could see a transhuman party succeeding very well in either Canada or the 'States if the main ambition of the party members is to counter the FUD currently being spread about transhumanists and our goals (I'm looking at you as I type this, Mr Fukuyama, Mr Joy, et al.). I can almost hear the dripping of saliva from the mouths of journalists looking to ratchet up the polemics between the bio-conservatives and -progressives. A transhuman party would almost be guaranteed attention from the media industry (I don't feel comfortable calling them just the "media" any more), I suspect.

Of course, it's more entertaining to think about a transhuman occupying 24 Sussex Drive (the Canadian prime minister's residence) or the White House, and if you're going to dream, dream big...

I've been thinking a little about how one might go about influencing a society to adopt a long-term outlook as a precursor to the attainment of much greater longetivity. Cultural and artistic endeavours such as the Long Now Foundation certainly provide one avenue, but to really reshape people's daily behaviour I think that economic incentives are needed... but which ones? It would be interesting to establish a set of national goals to be realized in 250, 500, and 1000 years and provide tax shelters to people willing to invest in such projects. Efforts to terraform and colonize other planets, or even our own; the Canadian north is a big empty place, but I wouldn't want to live there unless it was underground or under big 'ol domes. Grand engineering projects like space elevators and space stations, quantum computers and universal assemblers might all benefit from a long-term concerted effort. Hell, if you want to see the aging problem licked once and for all, tell the day traders and billionaires alike that they can have a nice 90% tax-break in their golden years, i.e. if they manage to reach 250. Then watch the funds pour into gerontological research...

I've always agreed with proposals that the techniques used by economists to calculate e.g. G.N.P. need to be altered to take into account additional factors such as the damage done to the environment as a result of industry, in order to more accurately reflect the state of a nation. If improvements in the much vaunted "productivity" of a country are bought at the expense of reducing life expectancy to 55-60, is it a worthwhile trade-off?

Starting to wander, will sign off here.

The Minister of Crime wrote, "The first examples that spring to mind are the Marijuana Party (cannabis legalisation) and the Parti Populaire des Putes (Whore's Popular Party; regulation of the sex trade and protection of sex workers, related health issues). I don't think either one plans to control the House of Commons anytime soon, but it's amusing to think of the results if they did. There would certainly be a lot less shouting and a much more relaxed vibe when Parliament was in session, in either case. :)"

I burst out laughing upon reading this!

But getting to the point, or a point, I think it would be much more productive, at least in the States, to go directly to the main parties and influence them directly instead of adding a layer of complication by forming a another party if we already assume that party is doomed to be absorbed.

I think transhumanists, in the States, would have an easier time merging with and influencing the left, the Democrats, than the right, the Republicans. One only has to think of Gore to realize this, his intellectualism may be alienating to voters but from what I've read (He talked about nanotechnology back in the early Ninties before becoming VP. This was way before Gingrich woke up to the idea.) it's clear he's been thinking about where things are headed.

But of course I'm biased. I'm a Democrat.

Mr. Farlops wrote:
I think transhumanists, in the States, would have an easier time merging with and influencing the left, the Democrats, than the right, the Republicans. One only has to think of Gore to realize this, his intellectualism may be alienating to voters but from what I've read (He talked about nanotechnology back in the early Ninties before becoming VP. This was way before Gingrich woke up to the idea.) it's clear he's been thinking about where things are headed.

But of course I'm biased. I'm a Democrat.

From what I know of current political trends in the U.S., I'm inclined to agree that the Democrats would provide a more hospitable reception to voters with transhuman issues on the mind, especially those advocating a form of democratic transhumanism as detailed in books like "Citizen Cyborg". I'm not sure this will necessarily remain the case given the political reversals that many pundits seem to be predicting for the next U.S. federal election; it doesn't stretch the imagination to envision extropian-style transhumanists, with their "don't tread on me" libertarian ethos, finding a comfortable niche within a small-c conservative Republican party (which through this outsider's eyes it doesn't seem to be, but might become if whittled down to size at the polls).

Actually I can see Republicans adopting a techno-utopian tone and singing the praises of nanotech to their political base when it's far enough along in development that they realize it could negate or reverse the effect of all those years spent outsourcing manufacturing operations. North America might once again become a place where things get made. Actually, that would be an interesting stratagem: ramp up development of nanotech and further export manufacturing operations, then one day pull the big lever that starts your nanotech universal factory that makes everything (literally everything!) faster, better, and cheaper, leaving all those places with old-technology factories with a whole lot of sunk capital costs and no markets, clamoring to buy assembled goods and reverse the flow of trade. If I was a greedy plutocrat, or just trying to think like one, that's what I'd do. :)

I would seriously question your faith in the Democratic party.  If you honestly think they are going to fix any of the problems in the US, then you are a brainwashed partisan.  The best they could do is screw things up at a slower rate.

If you look at the list of all the politicians who took money from Abramoff... you will see many prominent Democrats on there.

They are not going to better regulate globalization, they are not going to get us out of Iraq faster, they are not going to do much of anything even if they do, by some miracle, regain power.

AggressiveProgressive:

I would seriously question your faith in the Democratic party.  If you honestly think they are going to fix any of the problems in the US, then you are a brainwashed partisan.  The best they could do is screw things up at a slower rate.

If you look at the list of all the politicians who took money from Abramoff... you will see many prominent Democrats on the list.

They are not going to better regulate globalization, they are not going to get us out of Iraq faster, they are not going to do much of anything even if they do, by some miracle, regain power.

What if a woman becomes the next (Madam) President? I think that might change things drastically.

The Mentalis

Are you referring to Hillary Clinton, the woman who is always on TV spewing more hawkish rhetoric than George Bush himself?  I sure hope not.

Voting for someone because they are a woman is about as logical as voting for someone because they are white.  You should always vote for the best person for the job, regardless of race, sex, religion, or party.

There are a few Democrats worth supporting, such as Russell Feingold and Eliot Spitzer, but for the most part the Democrats are hopeless.  I am a strong supporter of Ralph Nader, and refuse to support any more of these "centrist" (aka neoimperialist and neoconservative) Democrats. Yes, that's right... only one senator voted against the PATRIOT act, Russell Feingold.  That is it.  He is the sum total of all the liberals in the senate.

AP writes, "I would seriously question your faith in the Democratic party."

Sigh. Believe me, I'm well aware of the erosion of principles over the last 30 years.

It was particularly telling in the last few elections that the only party that came out is unreservedly in favor of campaign finance reform was one that I believe was essentially unelectable: Ralph Nader's.

Has global trade been reformed? Has it been opened up and rendered subject to democratic and public pressures? No, not really.

It's not that surprising that health care reform was successfully FUD'd into oblivion. It's not that surprising that Democrats, continually fearful of appearing soft of foreign policy, basically rolled over and let George Jr. have his "glorious little war."

And it's probably partially my fault, that in my desparation to get this incompetent out of office, I supported a candidate, Kerry, that I hoped, in vain, would appeal to the other side of the fence. Maybe we might have won 2004 if the party made a clear, unapologetic and uncompromising distinction between itself and the Republicans.

And now we're all paying for it. But political realities are slow to change. I can stand and watch in horror as stupid side-issues destract the country from the stuff that matters.

Perversely I have a fox and the grapes moment. Now the Republicans have no one to blame anymore. They have control of all major organs of the Federal Government. It will be a lot easier now to point out their shortcomings.

Sigh. I do a lot of introspection. Maybe we moderate Democrats have been waiting too long for enlightenment to come the voting public. Moderation gave us Clinton but lost us everything else. Maybe it's time to get radical again, to be the party in wilderness until a new ideological coalition can build to let us take the center again.

I'm writing all this stuff down and already I'm second guessing myself. Pragmatism and moderation have their perils too.

Vondracos, writes, "What if a woman becomes the next (Madam) President? I think that might change things drastically."

I don't think it would really. The first women into major political offices are under continual pressure to downplay any departures from the status quo. Maybe the ones that follow have more freedom but usually the first tend to be very hawkish and tend to be very conservative.

It's utterly unfair but that's how politics are. Not enough people will vote provocative or radical non-white, non-males into offices for the first time. They'll accept Colin Powell but reject Al Sharpton. They'll accept Jeanne Kirkpatrick but they'll probably reject Hillary Clinton.

Wow, you grasp the political realities incredibly well.

Considering how badly trying to appear "moderate" worked, now is the time to be uncompromising and stick to the core issues (regulating globalization, balancing the budget, getting out of Iraq, nationalized healthcare, etc).  People were too sidetracked with issues like gay marriage to worry about the truly important issues.  Seriously, I know plenty of people who supported Bush for that reason alone.

The Republicans understand how rhetoric and policy are two different things, the Democrats didn't.  Notice how the Republicans talked big on gay marriage but did nothing?  The Democrats should do the opposite... not talk at all on the subject, and when in power they should probably push for civil unions (as in change the name of marriage certificates for all people to civil union certificates... problem solved)

Hi all,
This is also my first post on this forum, and I hope it will contribute to the discussion.
Reading through, I kept being reminded of points I had read a while back in an essay by David Brin - "The Real Culture War".  I'm wondering if anyone with more insight into American politics (I'm Canadian as well) has read it. Does does it ring true or miss the mark? I'd be interested in comments from people who identify as transhumanists who also consider themselves members of a U.S. political party and can offer support or criticism for the ideas Brin expresses.

Key points for me:
- Left vs. Right, Liberal vs. Conservative, Republican vs. Democrat, labels do not accurately reflect the real differences.
- The traditional categories serve to "divide and conquer" individuals who might otherwise work together on all but a few idealogical issues.
- This disempowers moderates and forces polarization and division.
- Romanticizers of the past vs. those who look forward to the future might be a more useful comparison.

It resonates very strongly for me, but am I just impressionable and easily swayed or is there some real insight that we can use?

A snippet from the sidebar titled "Authorial Bias":

..."Ideological clichés only distract from the real struggle between two ways of perceiving time - romantic nostalgia vs. pragmatic modernity. To some, the future seems daunting, limited, and perilous, requiring steady leadership from above. Others see it as a frontier of opportunity where free citizens can thrive, both individually and together.
 
"It boils down to whether you believe children can and should be better than their parents."
 
 ... The common theme in this article - and those linked below - is choosing the future over the past:

Beauwulf,

I've read though this and his related essays and Brin makes a few good points and covers a lot of ground. I'll try to restict my comments to the stuff you cited.

You find nostalgics and pragmatists in both parties. You'll find opponents and advocates of progress in both parties.

His plan to build a new, pro-progess, ideological coalition of pragmatic moderates might be more nearly realized than he knows.

The problem is that what is defined as progress and modernity keeps changing.

Once the Democrat Party, under FDR, was considered the party of the future but, these days the New Deal solutions are quaint and naive. This became obvious when LBJ, having grown up in that mindset, advocated policy that occasionally succeeded and was visionary (Civil Rights. Spaceflight.) but at other times failed very badly and was considered old fashioned (The War on Poverty, Vietnam.). The New Deal ended with the Great Society.

The coalition that grew up around Reagan was considered reformatory and, in some quarters (Not mine.), even visionary. At that time, it seemed that the GOP was the party of optimists who looked forward to the future while dismissing the left as stodgy and afraid of change. (I can argue with this but let's remember that in politics perception is everything.) Anyway this coalition is now disintegrating under GW Bush.

Anyway, both wings, left and right, have their futuristic, optimistic visionaries and pragmatic moderates. The problem is you can't get them all to agree on everything. So they pick sides. Ultimately all political decisions are binary--yea or nay, pass or fail, left or right.

This is why the Libertarian Party will always find it's platform and agenda divided between Republicans and Democrats. Moderates who might join the LP usually instead join the moderates found with the Dems or the GOP. You'll never find a permanent party of moderates because both wings will change their ideology to appeal to the moderates at the center and sap the "Moderate Party" ranks.

I'm a slightly left-leaning moderate. There is much in the Libertarian Party agenda that I find appealling yet there is just enough that I don't agree with (Namely its worship of markets and incautious minarchism.) that I'll never join.  However there are many moderates in the GOP, as evidenced by intellectuals like George Will, William Buckley and the Cato Institute, who would welcome forward thinking, pragmatic, optimistic Libertarian Party members gladly, if only to take control of their party back from the wacky fringe elements.

There is a lot more I could say but these are some of the things that sprang to my mind when reading Brin's essays.

Crime minister, what are your sketched out ideas about a transhuman political party?

I think some trnahumanistic issues are:

-Euthanasia in a way that preserves the brain (suitable for cryonics) although this is iffy
-Approval for enhanching drugs, streamlining the regulatory process, and subsidising drug development.
-Science funding and positive regulation
-Research direction (science is already politicised...)
-Rights to enhancement, and rights for non-humans .
-Space regulations and investment
-Long-term environmental issues
-New political reform

Here is a link to someones partly tranhumanist party in the UK www.theconsensus.org. They have interesting policys like making polititians promises binding.

I think a special political court to enforce responsibility might be a good idea.