Zoltan Istvan does not speak for the Transhumanist Party

EDIT: Please note that the first paragraph below has been expanded slightly, to make it perfectly clear who the author is, and in what official capacity this letter has been written.

My name is Amon Twyman. This is an open letter to the entire Transhumanist community, written in my capacity as Party Leader of the Transhumanist Party (a registered political party in the UK), coordinator of the Transhumanist Party Global umbrella organisation, and founder of multiple associated groups. It is important to note that in the UK the Transhumanist Party is an officially registered and fully constituted political party, which operates in accord with a clear set of internal rules which are consistent with UK law. Our membership count has grown rapidly, in the few months since the party’s inception. The following statement is primarily made in my capacity as the leader of that party, reflecting both my official responsibilities to that party, and the due processes of that party.

I feel that it is now necessary to address an unfortunate apparent schism within the Transhumanist movement, and show the way forward toward a positive, constructive, intelligent solution to the problem. In other words, a solution which captures the intended spirit of Transhumanist thinking. In short, I feel that I must address the question of Zoltan Istvan. His role in relation to the Transhumanist Party, and in relation to the movement as a whole, and the mixed reactions to some of his more notable recent actions. It is not my intention to support or condemn any individual, but instead to offer perspective which will help us all move forward as a unified movement.

The Transhumanist Party is a rapidly growing, worldwide movement of organisations, some of which explicitly use that name (or some version of it) while others do not. It is effectively a network that represents the primary manifestation of Political Transhumanism, which is in turn an important current within the broader Transhumanist Movement.

The strength of the Party is the same as the strength of the wider Movement of which it is a part: Cooperation, and a sense of unity which paradoxically arises from an acceptance of diversity and pluralism. In other words, the Transhumanist Party – worldwide – is thriving because we understand that our members do not all have to believe exactly the same things in order to be on the same team and achieve common goals. The same goes for Transhumanism as a whole. The Party is just one aspect of Transhumanism, and Transhumanism as a whole thrives when we understand it to have many facets, all reflecting and supportive of each other.

I think this is important to understand, and sometimes visual metaphors can cement understanding, so you may wish to think on it this way:

Imagine a large room or chamber, effectively hidden (for now) from the eyes of the wider world. That chamber constitutes our entire movement, every aspect of Transhumanism as it currently exists. The chamber is filled with candles, each representing an aspect of the movement, a person or group or idea. There are small and large candles, candles standing alone and others in clusters, some larger than others. When they are all allowed and encouraged to shine together, their collective light might stand a chance of being seen from outside, and the world may come to see. We should not wish to extinguish any of the candles, or to imagine that the light of any single candle can ever shine brightly enough on the world to bring the changes we want to see. If we do not all shine together, we might as well not be shining at all.

Recently we have heard a lot of disgruntled mumblings about schism, and disunity within the movement. Most of this is just idle internet noise, but real issues and differences have flared up. Once such issue has involved unilateral statements made by Zoltan Istvan, ostensibly on behalf of the Transhumanist Party. People have increasingly been asking what right Istvan has to make such proclamations, and some worry that he is bringing the movement as a whole into disrepute, despite being a particularly bright-shining “candle” himself. I would like to take this opportunity to briefly sum up the situation, once only and as a matter of record.

Zoltan has a spectacular drive, sense of personal ambition, and ability to connect with mainstream media. We as a movement could all learn well from him, and intend to do so. But while his efforts gives him a unique opportunity to “brand” Transhumanism for a wider audience as he personally sees fit, he does not have any moral authority to do so. His implicit claim to moral authority comes from his claim to be founder of the Transhumanist Party, but the fact is that he is no such thing. He created and popularised the idea, to be sure, but he deliberately chose not to build a real party. He has explicitly rejected all real party-building, due process, and even democracy itself. There is a real party in the UK, and serious party organisations developing in Europe (supported by TP Global), and even a real party beginning to form in the U.S. – but Zoltan is not even a member of that U.S. Party. The simple fact is that he has his own small media group, which does what he needs to do to run a media campaign, and that’s it. Therefore, Zoltan has no mandate to speak on behalf of any other Transhumanists in terms of policy or anything else. His opinions are his own.

Now, I do not mean to imply that’s a bad thing. It’s a spectacular thing, and more of us should be doing it. But it does not make Zoltan anything more than a particularly effective advocate for the Party – one whose service the Party will always be grateful for. His personal organisation is a fraction of the size of the larger groups he inspired, but which are not under his personal control. His personal focus is on longevity, which is a great hook in media terms, but longevity technologies are only one aspect of real Transhumanist Party policy being developed… and which is not being developed autocratically by a single person, but in collaboration with multiple established Transhumanist think tanks, and in accord with rigorous, democratic due process.

Last but not least, unfortunately Zoltan has created the need for a statement like this, by starkly announcing that the Transhumanist Party believes various things which are violently incongruent with the beliefs of many bona fide Transhumanists. That would be OK if these things were true policy established by some valid process, but they simply are not. This unfortunate rupture has forced those of us working to build real Transhumanist Parties around the world to assert a positive, cooperative message, which we now extend to all Transhumanists and like-minded people:

We want to work as a fully cooperative part of the broader Transhumanist Movement, and will soon be working to extend our media and activist reach far beyond the traditional confines of that movement. We accept all the diverse branches of the movement as valid (or at least potentially so), and vigorously welcome healthy difference of opinion. That difference enriches us, rather than divides. We are already in full support of and in friendly relations with all the major Transhumanist organisations, and so would ask that everyone understand that there is no schism. There is just one Transhumanism, in its multi-faceted, argumentative, free-thinking glory. The Transhumanist Party is not defined by the views of even its most energetic advocates, but by due process (which you can shape by getting involved, whoever you may be), and its guiding mission is to support and carry forward the Transhumanism which already existed before the Party did. In other words, to support you.

You – all those people who we help and who choose to help us – are our mandate. Our due process ensures that it is a valid, and fair one. Zoltan Istvan’s views do not define the Party, and so there is no schism. There is just potential, whether you are politically-inclined or not. I feel that this is a message which every Transhumanist should intuitively understand and support.

Actions speak louder than words. Support an official, due-process driven Transhumanist Party organisation or indeed any active Transhumanist organisation of note, and we are on the same team. We want, and will achieve, the same things. Together.

http://transhumanistpartyglobal.org
http://transhumanistparty.org.uk

Advertisements
Zoltan Istvan does not speak for the Transhumanist Party

Official Policies of the Transhumanist Party (2015)

Last Sunday (4th October 2015), we held the inaugural Transhumanist Party Day in London, including our first AGM to officially determine Party policy by democratic means. You can find the list of our officially approved policies below, but first I would like to make a brief comment on the voting process.

This was the first test of our party’s democratic processes, and it appears to have been an overwhelming success. The party now has a mandate from its membership, which started with policy proposals submitted by the end of August, followed by ratification by the National Executive Committee (to check that proposed policies did not contravene the Transhumanist Party Principles), and finally by an open membership vote held both online and at the AGM.

There were two proposed amendments to the party’s constitution (see below), and I am glad to report that both were accepted with 100% support. Furthermore, there were six policy packages consisting of a number of proposed policies each. We offered members the chance to accept any package in toto, or to pick and choose which policies they supported. According to our party constitution only a simple majority threshold (i.e. 50%+) is required for a proposal to pass. Some consideration has been given to applying a higher threshold for this initial meeting, but it has been decided by the party leadership that an arbitrary threshold would do a disservice to party members who support any given policy which met constitutional requirements but not an arbitrarily higher threshold (and as importantly, one not announced in advance).

As it happens, we received an overwhelming mandate from the party membership, with three packages accepted outright at the 50% threshold, and all individual policies still being accepted at the same threshold where the packages as a whole were not accepted. Where a package as a whole was not accepted and a member had voted in favour of an entire package, they were considered to have cast a vote in favour of each individual policy comprising it (if we didn’t do this, we’d have to explain why we were throwing away half the members’ votes regarding half the policies). All six policy packages are thus considered to have been adopted as official policy, in full. Anonymised voting numbers will be made available to party members upon request, once they have been properly prepared.

Even though a higher acceptance threshold has not been applied, it is worth noting that only 3 of the 27 policy proposals would not be accepted at a 67% threshold, which in the party constitution is a threshold reserved for amendments to the constitution itself. In order to avoid undermining the established mandate, I will not be commenting on which three policies those are.

These are now the official policies of the Transhumanist Party, until the next AGM or special poll of the membership. Rules for submitting new proposals toward future changes will be released shortly. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the party.

OFFICIAL POLICIES OF THE TRANSHUMANIST PARTY (2015)


A. Party Constitution amendments:

1.0
The Transhumanist Party’s ideological position is known as Social Futurism, which represents the integration of social and technological concerns. We adopt this position as a reminder that our central mission as a Transhumanist political party is to harness technological potential for the benefit of society.

2.0
The National Executive Committee (NEC) is responsible for drafting interim party policy where an issue is judged by the party leadership to have arisen for which there is no policy yet in place. The adoption of interim policy must be in accord with constitutional voting rules. Any such policy must be formally ratified at the first AGM following its inception, or be automatically considered rescinded in the absence of ratification.

B. Initial Transhumanist Party policies:

3.0 Political and Judicial Reform

3.1
Governance in the UK to be reformed toward greater democratic, technologically mediated participation in decision making (particularly with regard to functions which can be safely ceded to local authorities), and a greater focus on evidence-based policies rather than ideology.

3.2
Proportional representation is to be instituted.

3.3
The House of Lords to be transformed, over time, to a second chamber augmented by the most effective technological decision aids available.

3.4
No MP may take any other paid work while during their term in Parliament, and laws are to be enacted to reform the “revolving door” system of MP’s subsequent appointments and private sector political influence.

3.5
Freedom of speech will be vigorously defended, with the exception of speech that (1) constitutes a direct incitement to violence, (2) is libellous (with libel reform to have burden of proof put on the claimant), or (3) is the product of a crime designed to acquire or create the information transmitted (trading in or further transmitting such information will make one an accessory to the original crime).

3.6
Reform of intellectual property and software patent law, to allow only the most clearly justified limitation of freedoms of speech and information.

3.7
Laws addressing the regulation of emerging technologies will as far as possible prioritise the preservation of personal freedoms insofar as other people’s personal freedoms, rights, or the needs of society are not being curtailed. People should be free to use new technologies as they see fit if they are harming no-one else and there is no clear potential for such harm, and they must be guaranteed freedom from inappropriate intrusion by the state made possible by new technologies.

4.0 Economics

4.1
The highest goal of the Transhumanist Party is to ensure that the potential benefits of technological change are as widely accessible as possible across society, and to create conditions which maximise opportunities for positive technological development.

4.2
The state pension, and retirement age, to be abolished. Those who cannot work will instead be entitled to claim state benefits. This is a policy to be introduced over a fifteen year timescale and culminate in a Basic Income Guarantee for all citizens.

4.3
A Land Value Tax to be introduced.

4.4
There will be no state subsidies for mature, profitable industries – no “bail outs”.

4.5
The state will provide full grants to all citizen students. Those receiving full grants will be liable to repay them if they emigrate within a ten-year period after graduation.

5.0 Environment

5.1
Transhumanist Party environmental policies must emphasise the use of “Bright Green” technologies to improve the health and wellbeing of the natural world, and to minimise any negative environmental effects of technology. This will necessitate constant reform and improvement of environmental impact legislation.

5.2
Targeted year on year reduction in the use of pesticides and herbicides. Support for vertical farming and robotic techniques.

5.3
Factory farming of animals to be more strictly regulated. Research into tissue culture as a replacement source for meat to be actively supported and subsidised.

6.0 Health and Education

6.1
The NHS will be encouraged to evolve in a direction in which greater emphasis is placed on preventive and regenerative biotechnology.

6.2
Laws governing pharmaceuticals will be modified to allow licensing of drugs that extend lifespan, enhance intelligence or make one “better than well”.

6.3
No culturally divisive education is to be supported by the taxpayer. This includes schools charging significant fees as well as those selecting by class, race or religion.

6.4
New technologies which can significantly reduce educational & health system costs and improve performance of those systems will be subsidised by the government in order to encourage swift adoption.

7.0 Society and Europe

7.1
Although we are concerned with the wellbeing of humanity as a whole, our party focusses first and foremost on British societal needs. The demands of multiculturalism and other societies will be considered secondary to the needs of our own society. Within the broad boundaries of asserting our own societal needs first, we will strive to create an integrated, harmonious society.

7.2
Immigration policy shall prioritise skilled migrants, and while refugees will be welcomed with vigorous humanitarian support, such refugees will not be afforded the full rights or freedoms of properly recognised immigrants. Although we seek to support and enable our fellow human beings, we cannot do so in a manner which abandons our own right to future self-determination as a nation.

7.3
The Council of the European Union (AKA the Council of Ministers) should not be allowed undue control over the democratically elected European Parliament. The Council should be reduced to the status of ‘second chamber’ with power of veto over European Parliament decisions rather than direct legislative power.

8.0 Defence and International Relations

8.1
An immediate halt to the selling of arms to nations that are not democracies, or are debtor nations in the international community to an extent significantly beyond the international norm.

8.2
Retain and properly maintain an effective nuclear deterrent.

8.3
No foreign aid to governments. Foreign aid should only be given direct to people who need the aid, or NGOs which can be trusted on the basis of evidence that they will properly distribute it.

8.4
No aid to nations with nuclear weapon programs.

8.5
Support for self-determination of culturally coherent peoples, where geography allows and can be shown to be viable (e.g. Kurds), as well as devolution movements (e.g. Scotland).

Official Policies of the Transhumanist Party (2015)

[Press] CORBYN HAS GOOD IDEAS, BUT THE NATION CAN DO BETTER

TRANSHUMANIST PARTY PRESS RELEASE

Transhumanist Party press releases can be found here:
https://transhumanistparty.wordpress.com/tag/pressrelease/

CORBYN HAS GOOD IDEAS, BUT THE NATION CAN DO BETTER

Labour is changing with the times, but we need a true vision for the future

We welcome the return of the Labour party to its ideological roots, which will hopefully introduce real choice between the major parties for the first time in decades. However, it remains to be seen if this new leadership can truly move politics into the 21st Century. We applaud Mr Corbyn’s stance on environmental issues; notably climate change, carbon neutrality, and a clean nationalised energy supply. Furthermore, we support the view that the National Health Service (NHS) should remain publicly funded. However we oppose the offer of support for homeopathy, for which there is no scientific basis or evidence of efficacy.

Moving forward, it remains to be seen if Labour, even under new leadership, can make a positive impact in the areas of democratic reform (transparency and proportional representation), technological unemployment, accelerating technological change, and funding for necessary scientific research which fuels true growth. The Transhumanist Party calls for cross-party dialogue to explore and address these issues, and so inform evidence based policy and ensure that accelerating technological progress brings positive social change, to balance the inequalities currently seen across our society.

Party leader Amon Twyman says, “It is refreshing to see the re-emergence of true political choice in Britain, but Nineteenth Century notions of social justice are not well matched to the realities of the Twenty First Century. The Labour Party can demonstrate its commitment to properly engage those realities by inviting cross-party discussions of new issues in democratic reform, education and employment. The Transhumanist Party is ready to contribute to that debate.”

[Press] CORBYN HAS GOOD IDEAS, BUT THE NATION CAN DO BETTER

[Press] NO to blanket bans on Genetically Modified crops

TRANSHUMANIST PARTY PRESS RELEASE

Transhumanist Party press releases can be found here:
https://transhumanistparty.wordpress.com/category/press-release/

NO TO BLANKET BANS ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS

Why the Scottish ban on GM is bad for Scotland and the UK

The recent announcement by MSP Richard Lochhead to ban the growing of Genetically Modified crops in Scotland is short-sighted. By banning GM crop growing Scotland is announcing its intention to rely solely on outdated, cumbersome and increasingly non-competitive “natural” methods. Indeed, this ban will more than likely increase the potential for negative impact on the very industries we wish to preserve, making the very “gamble” that Mr Lochhead says he wishes to avoid.

In an age of accelerating technological progress, this announcement appears to be anti-science and thus anti-progress, which may have far reaching effects beyond the Scottish border. It announces to the world that Britain is insular and unable to compete, converse or engage in this area, when biotechnology research is arguably one of the UK’s greatest assets. There is no scientific evidence to support the assertion that GM crop production has a negative impact on the environment or human health, so this announcement has no basis in fact and panders only to anti-technology extremists.

Climate change is another factor we should consider, having an impact that is not yet fully understood, and GM crops have the potential to vouchsafe the future of food production in Britain, by allowing us to control the evolution of crops in response to radical changes in climate before they occur.

We acknowledge that sometimes the business of trading in GM crops is not approached ethically (e.g. encouraging reliance on a few large companies for seed every season), so greater and more carefully considered regulation of GM crop business is warranted. The use of these technologies should be judged on a case by case basis however, rather than simply banned altogether.

Party leader Amon Twyman says, “The Transhumanist Party fully supports well-regulated GM crop production, and the progress being made in the biotechnology industries to provide Great Britain with methods of sustainable agriculture. We call for Mr Lochhead to reassess the Scottish position on GM crops after a balanced review of the scientific evidence.”

[Press] NO to blanket bans on Genetically Modified crops

The official Transhumanist Party blog

This is the official blog of the Transhumanist Party (a registered political party in the UK) and Transhumanist Party Global, maintained by Dr. M. Amon Twyman, Leader of the UK Party and founder of TP Global.

Posts in this blog fall into five categories. You can browse posts in each category by clicking the title links below, or clicking the menu button at the top-right of your browser window.

1. Transhumanist Party (Category: UK)

This category consists of posts about Party news, events, and other announcements from the UK. You can find links to a variety of Transhumanist Party resources at http://transhumanistparty.org.uk.

2. Press Release (Category: Press Release)

This category is for official press releases from the Transhumanist Party in the UK.

3. Transhumanist Party Global (Category: TPG)

In addition to Party news from the UK, this blog offers news from affiliated organisations around the world, acting together as one movement under the umbrella of Transhumanist Party (Global). Posts in this category have the label [TPG] in their titles.

4. Guest-written posts (Category: guest)

You can use this category to search for insights from guest writers affiliated with the Transhumanist Party worldwide.

5. Social Futurism & the Zero State (Category: ISF/ZS)

The Transhumanist Party is connected to a growing web of like-minded organisations, which can be broadly characterised as “Social Futurist” or “Techno-Progressive” in nature. Some of those organisations were predecessors of the Transhumanist Party, while others are its current partners. All of them have the opportunity to tell us about their viewpoints, plans and achievements in this category.

This category is also a place where you can read posts from the Institute for Social Futurism, which is a think tank associated with the Transhumanist Party, exploring the relationship between social justice concerns and the radical transformative potential of modern technology. Posts in this category have the label [ISF] in their titles.

The official Transhumanist Party blog

[ISF] The Zero State idea & Technoprogressivism

This post is part of the Social Futurism archive, copied from the “Wavism” blog (dedicated to Social Futurism, the WAVE movement, and the Zero State idea) which existed prior to the founding of the Transhumanist Party. As an archive document originally published in May 2011, this post may contain statements which are no longer accurate.


It has been said that the Zero State Principles suggest a decentralized direct democracy with a cashless, non-market or technocratic system for the distribution of goods internally, and use of markets externally – by inference implying an opposition to national and transnational democracy.

This point of view came from a prominent TechnoProgressive, who also asked what I see as the differences between TechnoProgressivism (as outlined in the links below) and the Zero State worldview. This post is a copy of the answer I gave.

The ZS Principles can be found via http://zerostate.net

The TechnoProgressive stance is expressed via the following links:

http://ieet.org/index.php/tpwiki/Technoprogressivism/

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/biopolitics

In a nutshell, the above provides a clearer description of the ZS stance than we ourselves have yet managed to distill. Which is to say, the ZS Principles imply an opposition to the current mode of national and transnational representative democracy, in which institutions develop in ways which block real (direct, or at least functioning representative) democracy, and we see the development of what might be considered crypto-oligarchies.

I would make clear though, that while ZS addresses global political & economic issues, our emphasis is on creating our own space, where our own rules apply, if such a thing is possible. Therefore, we’re not advocating that everyone should follow our model, but that we should be free to follow it ourselves.

Broadly speaking, there are fundamental similarities between the ZS ‘worldview’ (for want of a better word) and the TechnoProgressive stance. We’re certainly not bioconservatives of any stripe, and prefer not to get bogged down in traditional left-versus-right political categories where possible. As mentioned above, we believe in democracy up to a point, but with an emphasis upon direct (and heavily curtailed representative) democracy. Beyond these commonalities, there are three points where I can see potential differences between the politics of ZS and those of TechnoProgressivism & the IEET. There do appear to be other social or cultural differences, but in this post I will focus on political/economic points of view.

1) Animal rights & personhood

This is an interesting point, which I wouldn’t personally have picked up on, but which was repeatedly raised by ZS members I asked about this. Briefly, some of our people feel that IEET over-emphasizes the case for sentient personhood, especially as it relates to animal rights. I wouldn’t call this an outright difference, as the ZS Principles clearly state that we seek to abolish suffering, and the capacity for suffering will be considered in all judgments of sapience. What this doesn’t say, however, is that minimal sentience will automatically grant full personhood, which I gather is a strong point of view within IEET.

Another grey area here, of course, is the fact that ZS Principles state that all sentient entities within our sphere of influence will be offered the opportunity to accept ZS rights & privileges of citizenship. There’s an implicit line in the sand drawn there, in that non-communicating animals could not explicitly or meaningfully respond to such an offer, which means that they could not be recognized as full persons or citizens within ZS. That emphatically does not, however, give ZS citizens or anyone else license to cause them suffering of any sort.

2) Authoritarianism and the limits of democratic oversight

I understand that the IEET believes in democratic oversight of technological development. This presumably means democratic oversight of pretty much everything, as technological development accelerates to the point where kids can do things in garages that would have been DARPA projects 40 years ago.

We’ve already established that ZS values democracy, and therefore democratic oversight, but not full-blown representative democracy, which as you say rules out national and trans-national democratic structures. Although it slightly complicates our stance, you must also bear in mind that our focus is on the society within the Zero State. Others are free, and indeed encouraged, to choose whatever forms of political, economic or social system work for them.

That said, I must point out that ZS is not envisaged as an entirely grassroots, anarchic society. There will be institutions which work to facilitate implementation of Principle and direct-democratic decisions. These institutions are meritocratic (rather than democratic), and are not allowed any executive freedoms beyond their strictly stipulated function.

Hopefully the above gives some sense of where we’re headed when I say that ZS already has a fledgling Central Planning Committee (CPC). The function of the CPC is to lead and coordinate the democratic activities of ZS, but is not itself democratic. The CPC is not a form of central government, in that it may not interfere in direct democratic process unless that process has somehow broken or stalled, the integrity of ZS is threatened in some way, or the ZS Principles are in opposition to a decision that has been made.

3) Libertarianism and personal or collective freedoms

Point 2, above, details ways in which there is a kind of “upper bound” on democratic process within ZS, which ensures that the community does not lose sight of its initial founding Principles. I hope it is clear that this upper bound should not ‘creep downward’ due to the strict policy of meritocratic non-interference in democratic process except under very specific circumstances.

Similarly, I would like to outline a “lower bound” on ZS democratic process, which brings us to what is almost certainly our biggest difference with IEET & TechnoProgressivism. As I understand it, the IEET is opposed to the kind of libertarianism which flourishes (or flourished?) in corners of the transhumanist world such as Extropy Institute. ZS is emphatically not an attempt at some form of libertarian utopia, but there is one aspect in which ZS and libertarianism may coincide.

Just as the functions of the CPC and other meritocratic institutions are only allowed to intrude on direct democratic process under very specific circumstances, so individual citizens must be protected from a potential creep of democratic oversight mechanisms into their daily lives. Where citizens are living in accord with ZS Principle and a minimum of reasonable, local democratic laws, then they must be free to go about their business unhindered.

When we speak about individual citizens, few would object to the principle of guaranteed freedom from overly-intrusive societal control mechanisms (democratic or otherwise). The bigger problem is when we’re talking about collectives, such as companies (presumably part of the external trade economy), enjoying similar freedoms from control, and using those freedoms to cause societal damage and suffering of various types.

The ZS solution to this quandary is as follows: Citizen collectives, such as companies, are subject to no more or less democratic oversight than are individual citizens. On that level at least, such companies enjoy a remarkable level of freedom within the ZS sphere of influence. If it were left at that, we just might be talking about some kind of libertarian playground where profit and innovation were paramount. The thing is, that the kind of behaviours which companies are usually most maligned for are direct transgressions of ZS Principle. Any such transgression falls under the purview of the CPC and other meritocratic institutions within ZS, which would put a stop to it immediately, outside of democratic process.

4) Overview

So, I hope that readers can see that the IEET & ZS stances are in some ways very similar, but some of these other aspects will be, I’m sure, the cause of some difference. As I mentioned, ZS is in its earliest infancy, and so can still be significantly influenced in its development. If you have any comments or advice, or even loud opposition to voice, we would very much like to hear your point of view.

Last but not least, looking at the quadrant-graph of political schools of thought on the IEET site, I can’t help but feel that the worldview described above does not fit in any of the four regions. ZS is emphatically anti-biocon (i.e. pro-transhumanist), contains far too much democracy and meritocratic authoritarianism for the libertarians, too little democracy (especially representative democracy) for other tastes. It even complicates the question of animal/sentient rights, by drawing a distinction between personhood and capacity for suffering where others might conflate the two.

Here’s to the blooming of a hundred flowers!

[ISF] The Zero State idea & Technoprogressivism