The Rational Argumentator – A Journal for Western Man – Championing Reason, Rights, and Progress Since 2002

U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party Positions on 2024 Nevada Ballot Questions

October 17, 2024 Gennady Stolyarov II Comments 0 Comment

Gennady Stolyarov II

The United States Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party offer the following statements of position on the ballot questions currently before Nevada voters in the 2024 General Election.

Summary
Nevada State Question 1 – Remove Constitutional Status of Board of Regents Amendment: Neutral
Nevada State Question 2 – Revising Language Related to Public Entities for Individuals with Mental Illness, Blindness, or Deafness Amendment: Neutral
Nevada State Question 3 – Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative: Strongly Support
Nevada State Question 4 – Remove Slavery as Punishment for Crime from Constitution Amendment: Support
Nevada State Question 5 – Sales Tax Exemption for Diapers Measure: Support
Nevada State Question 6 – Right to Abortion Initiative: Neutral
Nevada State Question 7 – Voter Identification Initiative: Oppose

Nevada State Question 1 – Remove Constitutional Status of Board of Regents Amendment

Wording of Question: “Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to remove certain provisions governing the Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education and its administration of the State University and certain federal land grant funds and to provide additional legislative oversight of public institutions of higher education through regular independent audits, without repealing the current statutory election process or other existing statutory provisions relating to the Board of Regents?” (More information on BallotPedia.)

Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party are generally neutral as to the structure of oversight over educational institutions and so do not take a strong position as to whether Nevada universities are overseen by a separately elected Board of Regents or directly by the Legislature. Furthermore, Ballot Question 1 would not actually dissolve the Board of Regents, but rather would place it under the oversight of the Legislature instead of its powers being provided for in the Nevada Constitution. Therefore, the day-to-day governance of Nevada’s State-funded higher-education institutions may not be changed in significant ways.

BallotPedia notes that “An amendment to remove the constitutional status of the Board of Regents was also on the 2020 ballot in Nevada. Voters defeated this amendment by 50.15%-49.85%.”

The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party were similarly neutral on Ballot Question 1 in 2020. There was a favorable component of the 2020 Ballot Question 1, which is absent from the 2024 Ballot Question 1, and which would have mandated for the Legislature to provide by law for “the reasonable protection of individual academic freedom at Nevada’s public higher education institutions” –. The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party are supportive of strengthening protections for individual academic freedom and regret that the current iteration of Ballot Question 1 did not preserve that aspect. The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party do see some potential risks of politicization of higher education that may arise from Ballot Question 1 if a Legislature interferes directly in overseeing the content taught or the manner of individual expression permitted on a university campus, without specific protections for individual academic freedom being provided for by law.

However, the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party would generally consider the issues involved in the structure of university governance to be outside the purview of specifically transhumanist political advocacy. Therefore, members are encouraged to vote their conscience on this ballot question by consulting their own individual understandings of the relevant matters.

Nevada State Question 2 – Revising Language Related to Public Entities for Individuals with Mental Illness, Blindness, or Deafness Amendment

Wording of Question: “Shall Section 1 of Article 13 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to: (1) revise the description of the persons who benefit from institutions that the State is required to foster and support; (2) replace the term “institutions” with “entities”; and (3) add entities for the benefit of persons with intellectual or developmental disabilities to the types of entities that the State is required to foster and support?” (More information on BallotPedia.)

Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party are ultimately neutral on Ballot Question 2. Question 2 proposes to replace the current reference to “Institutions” with “Entities” and the current reference to benefiting “the Insane, Blind and Deaf and Dumb” with “persons with significant mental illness, persons who are blind or visually impaired, persons who are deaf or hard of hearing and persons with intellectual disabilities or developmental disabilities”. The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party do not take a strong position on revising language solely with the intention of appearing more sensitive, or avoiding terms that some might perceive to be offensive, although this should not be the sole motivation for a change, and Section XL of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform does oppose “the doctrine of censorship, now prevalent on many college campuses in the United States, in the name of […] avoiding subjectively perceived offense.” Wording revisions to a Constitution, however, are not in themselves censorship, in that the expression of any idea by anyone is not being forcibly suppressed, and there may instead be a genuine attempt to determine what superior, more accurate, or more generally palatable wording to describe a particular subject matter might be.

There is a more substantive possible aspect to Ballot Question 2, which ultimately addresses which institutions or entities the State of Nevada would be constitutionally obligated to support. For instance, not all “persons with significant mental illness” might fit under the older category of “the Insane”, and the category of “persons with intellectual disabilities or developmental disabilities” is a new addition, as such persons should not rightfully be referred to as “Insane” under any framework. Proponents of Ballot Question 2 may consider it worthwhile for the State of Nevada to provide financial support to entities treating individuals with intellectual disabilities or developmental disabilities. However, the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform and Transhumanist Bill of Rights – Version 3.0 ultimately do not take a position on whether such support should be governmentally provided. Article VII of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights – Version 3.0 states, “All sentient entities should be the beneficiaries of a system of universal health care. A system of universal health care does not necessitate any particular means, policy framework, source, or method of payment for delivering health care. A system of universal health care may be provided privately, by governments, or by some combination thereof, as long as, in practice, health care is abundant, inexpensive, accessible, and effective in curing diseases, healing injuries, and lengthening lifespans.” Therefore, it remains the decision of individual members of the U.S. and Nevada Transhumanist Parties regarding whether they would consider governmental support for treating individuals with intellectual disabilities or developmental disabilities to be the best means for overcoming those disabilities. It is possible for an individual member to agree with this, but it is also possible for another individual member to consider private institutions or individually motivated action to be more effective in overcoming at least some intellectual or developmental disabilities than State-funded institutions or entities might be.

Section XVIII of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform states that “The United States Transhumanist Party supports work to use science and technology to be able to eliminate all disabilities in humans who have them.” However, it is not clear whether any additional entities that would receive State support as a result of Ballot Question 2 would be focused on actually eliminating disabilities or only on helping people adapt to those disabilities. The latter may be a goal toward which some individual members of the U.S. and Nevada Transhumanist Parties may be sympathetic, but it is not a sufficiently or specifically transhumanist goal, nor is it one that the U.S. Transhumanist Party or Nevada Transhumanist Party take a position on – other than to express the hope that the individuals who are currently adapting to any disability will someday be freed from that disability through medical cures or technological augmentations that render the disability irrelevant to their day-to-day functioning.

Nevada State Question 3 – Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative

Wording of Question: “Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow all Nevada voters the right to participate in open primary elections to choose candidates for the general election in which all voters may then rank the remaining candidates by preference for the offices of U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Controller, Attorney General, and State Legislators?” (More information on BallotPedia.)

The plurality of Nevada voters are independent of the major political parties, and yet they are currently unable to meaningfully influence many local races where a major-party primary determines that party’s nominee, who then receives no meaningful competition at the ballot box in the general election. Moreover, Nevada, as a “battleground” electoral state, often features great pressure applied on voters to support the “lesser evil”, despite many Nevada voters being rightly disillusioned with both the Republican and the Democratic “options” provided to them. Ranked-preference voting eliminates the incentive to vote strategically or for a “lesser evil” to the exclusion of one’s genuinely preferred candidate, since one can provide a complete rank-ordering of one’s preferences rather than limit oneself to one choice.

Section XXX of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform states that “The United States Transhumanist Party supports replacing the current ‘winner-take-all’ electoral system with proportional representation, ranked preference voting, and other devices to minimize the temptations by voters to favor a perceived ‘lesser evil’ rather than the candidates closest to those voters’ own preferences.” Thus, support for ranked-choice voting is directly embedded in our Platform. Furthermore, Section XIX of the USTP Platform reads, in part, “The United States Transhumanist Party supports an end to the two-party political system in the United States and a substantially greater inclusion of ‘third parties’ in the political process through mechanisms such as proportional representation and the elimination of stringent ballot-access requirements.” Allowing open access to primaries and enabling ranked-preference voting in the general election would certainly lower the barriers to entry to candidates who do not belong to either of the duopoly parties.

The U.S. Transhumanist Party has successfully implemented ranked-preference voting in multiple of its internal votes. There is every reason to expect that ranked-preference voting could be implemented with similar success for the much simpler top-five ballots in Nevada general elections that would be developed if Question 3 were to be approved by the voters (twice, the first time this year). The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party strongly encourage every Nevada voter to support Ballot Question 3.

The opponents of Ballot Question 3 have included both the Republican and Democratic Parties and various politically connected special-interest advocacy groups; this should be quite revealing about what these establishment factions find to be threatening to their power. A ranked-choice voting system would break the ability of these powerful interests to manipulate the public through “lesser evil” arguments; politicians, to receive serious consideration, would actually have to at least pretend to be for the greater good rather than merely a lesser evil!

An astonishing and disgraceful plethora of misrepresentations about Ballot Question 3 have been propagated by the opposing establishment interests:
· Opponents claim that ranked-choice voting would be confusing to voters – as if people do not intuitively know how to rank-order their options; to suggest this is to insult the intelligence of nearly voter!
· Opponents claim that people would be forced to rank-order multiple candidates, when the text of the proposed Constitutional amendment specifically would allow a voter to “mark as many choices as the voter wishes” (Article 15, Section 18, Paragraph 3).
· Opponents claim that ranked-choice voting would violate the principle of “one person, one vote”, when in fact every eligible voter would still cast one ballot and would have the option to rank-order as many candidates as that voter wishes – from as few as one to as many as five. If a voter only chooses to indicate one candidate, or any number fewer than five, that voter is not disenfranchised by that voluntary decision, just as a person who is eligible to vote but chooses not to vote is not disenfranchised by their own choice. No serious argument can be made that the principle of “one person, one vote” is violated just because some people choose not to vote. By extension, no serious argument can be made that this principle would be violated just because some people would choose to rank-order fewer than all of the candidates.

For an extensive discussion of how ranked-choice voting works, the USTP encourages everyone to view our Virtual Enlightenment Salon with Kit Muehlman and FairVote Washington, as well as a subsequent, in-depth presentation by FairVote Washington on the technical workings of proportional ranked-choice voting.

Nevada State Question 4 – Remove Slavery as Punishment for Crime from Constitution Amendment

Wording of Question: “Shall the Ordinance of the Nevada Constitution and the Nevada Constitution be amended to remove language authorizing the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as a criminal punishment?” (More information on BallotPedia.)

Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party support Ballot Question 4. The Transhumanist Bill of Rights – Version 3.0 states in Article XXV, “No sentient entity shall be held in slavery or involuntary servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.” There are no exceptions provided for the prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude in the Transhumanist Bill of Rights. Question 4 would align the Nevada State Constitution with the Transhumanist Bill of Rights.

It has been noted in the various explanations of this ballot question that it would not result in the abolition of prison work programs, which may, if administered properly, have benefits such as enabling prisoners to learn marketable skills and to have a path toward integration into peaceful and productive economic life upon their release from prison. However, the prohibition of involuntary servitude would mean that prisoners would have the prerogative to opt into those work programs, and that prison labor would not be used as punishment for an offense in and of itself. The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party would concur that prison work programs should be voluntary for the prisoners and should be offered as opportunities, not as punishments.

Nevada State Question 5 – Sales Tax Exemption for Diapers Measure

Wording of Question: “Shall the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 be amended to provide an exemption from the taxes imposed by this Act on the gross receipts from the sale and the storage, use or other consumption of diapers?” (More information on BallotPedia.)

Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: Section XXXVI of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform expresses support for “a flat percentage-of-sales tax applicable only to purchases from businesses whose combined nationwide revenues from all affiliates exceed a specified threshold.” The U.S. Transhumanist Party, in its most recent Exposure Period, considered an amendment to Section XXXVI, which would add the language, “This tax would not be imposed on life necessities, defined as goods that are consumable in the near term and whose primary purpose is to facilitate human survival.” The Nevada Transhumanist Party already included this language on July 26, 2024, within Section V of the Nevada Transhumanist Party Platform.

Currently, the State of Nevada lacks an income tax and has a state sales tax, from which various goods considered to be necessities are excluded. Diapers can be considered to facilitate the survival, with a basic amount of dignity, of certain humans who need them. Based on the principle that the cost of necessities should be excluded from any manner of sales tax, which already appears to be reflected in Nevada law and in the Nevada Transhumanist Party Platform, and which also did not meet any opposition during the Exposure Period for Platform Vote #9, the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party support Ballot Question 5.

Nevada State Question 6 – Right to Abortion Initiative

Wording of Question: “Should the Nevada Constitution be amended to create an individual’s fundamental right to an abortion, without interference by state or local governments, whenever the abortion is performed by a qualified healthcare professional until fetal viability or when necessary to protect the health or life of the pregnant individual at any point during the pregnancy?” (More information on BallotPedia.)

Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party are intentionally and conscientiously neutral on the question of abortion, which is one of the most divisive and intractable issues in American politics today. Its intractability stems from the existence of an inherent conflict of rights, which cannot be resolved using contemporary technology.

Section LXXXIV of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform offers a potential future solution to this divisive issue in the form of ectogenesis, “the ability of organisms to be incubated and to grow to the point of independent survival, within an artificial environment that provides such organisms with all the necessities of biological survival and development.” Ectogenesis posses the promise of “alleviating the burdens of human pregnancy and rendering the divisive debate over abortion obsolete by reconciling the right to life of a fetus with the freedom of a woman to choose not to carry that fetus.”

However, ectogenesis for humans is not yet available. During the present time, abortion is being utilized to an escalating extent by both major political parties as a wedge issue designed, through the extreme responses to it from both sides, to polarize and divide the population over situations that are unlikely to affect most people personally. It is for this reason that the U.S. Transhumanist Party de-emphasizes the abortion issue in its Platform and rhetoric. Under the status quo, this issue cannot be constructively resolved. We need technology, such as ectogenesis, to render abortion, and especially the abortion debate, obsolete.

The U.S. Transhumanist Party’s founder, Zoltan Istvan, who is personally a supporter of abortion rights, articulated this point of view in his August 3, 2019, editorial in the New York Times, “The Abortion Debate Is Stuck. Are Artificial Wombs the Answer?”

The U.S. Transhumanist Party also recognizes that its members have a broad spectrum of views on the abortion issue. The USTP, in striving to be a big-tent organization, has intentionally avoided creating any manner of litmus test on this issue vis-à-vis its membership.

The U.S. Transhumanist Party does note, by way of a factual observation, that abortion is currently legal in Nevada statute up to 24 weeks (6 months), and thus if Ballot Question 6 is defeated, this would not affect the status quo in regard to the legality and availability of abortions in Nevada. Ballot Question 6 proposes to establish a right to abortion within the Nevada Constitution and would extend the timeframe of legal abortion “until fetal viability or when necessary to protect the health or life of the pregnant individual at any point during the pregnancy”. If enacted, Ballot Question 6 would thus likely broaden the timeframe during which abortions would be legal, in many cases substantially beyond 6 months.

Accordingly, individual members are free to vote their conscience, or to abstain from voting, on Ballot Question 6, however they may choose.

Nevada State Question 7 – Voter Identification Initiative

Wording of Question: “Should the Nevada Constitution be amended to require voters to either present photo identification to verify their identity when voting in-person or to provide certain personal information to verify their identity when voting by mail ballot?” (More information on BallotPedia.)

Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party seek to render it easier, not harder, for people (and sentient entities more generally) to be able to vote in elections. As a party with the broadest franchise of any organization known to it – extending the prerogative for Allied Membership to “any being capable of logical reasoning and of the expression of political opinions” (U.S. Transhumanist Party Constitution, Article II, Section X) – and enabling Allied Members to vote in its internal elections, the USTP is supportive of making voting as accessible as possible to as many sentient entities as possible. The USTP practices this in its internal voting processes, where electronic, ranked-preference voting has been used with significant success and with robust verification that only genuine USTP members (and not, for instance, non-sentient bots that serve a particular special interest) have been the ones casting votes.

While it is not inherently in conflict with the USTP’s values to require some manner of identification to render a person eligible to vote, the USTP does not consider a requirement of voter identification at the time of voting to be necessary for this purpose. When an individual registers to vote, it is already the case in Nevada that one of several listed forms of identification needs to be produced to demonstrate that this person is a U.S. citizen residing in the district where this person is seeking to register to vote. It is not necessary, once a person is registered to vote, to duplicatively require the same voter identification when that person seeks to cast their ballot. Per the official Arguments Against Passage of Question 7 on the Nevada Sample Ballot, “impersonating someone else at the polls [almost] never happens. One study found that that out of more than a billion votes cast, it happened 31 times – statistically zero. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning.”

Furthermore, requiring hard-copy voter identification at the time of voting reinforces an already-obsolete paper-based voting system which should, as soon as the technology is viable and deployable at scale, be replaced with an electronic, blockchain-based system using which people could securely verify their identities and vote from the comfort of their homes.

In practice, Ballot Question 7 would limit who is able to vote in Nevada and would, through procedural barriers, deprive some number of U.S. citizens who are legally eligible to vote and properly registered to vote from being able to vote in practice. The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party view such an outcome as contrary to their support for enfranchising more sentient entities. Accordingly, the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party are opposed to Ballot Question 7.

J. P. Meder – “My Own” Waltz (1885) – Recording by Gennady Stolyarov II

August 18, 2024 J. P. Meder Comments 0 Comment

J. P. Meder

John P. Meder (1848 – 1908) was a composer and polymath who spent most of his life (since 1864) in Carson City, Nevada. This waltz was published in 1885 by I.L.A. Brodersen. It is an energetic and somewhat playful waltz. The variety that is found in the various passages showcases Meder’s talents as a composer, and one who should be more appreciated as an early contributor to the musical culture of the United States and the American West.

Watch the new video of “My Own” Waltz, featuring the music along with the score, here.

This rendition in MuseScore 3.0 was created by Gennady Stolyarov II, due to the absence of any other recordings of this waltz online.

Download the MP3 file of J. P. Meder’s “My Own” Waltz here.

Resources

J. P. Meder Project by David Bugli

Score for J. P. Meder’s “My Own” Waltz from the Library of Congress (in the public domain)

U.S. Transhumanist Party Candidates Tom Ross and Daniel Twedt Respond to Free and Equal Debate #2 Questions

July 14, 2024 U.S. Transhumanist Party Comments 0 Comment

Tom Ross
Daniel Twedt
Gennady Stolyarov II
Art Ramon Garcia, Jr.
Jason Geringer

On Sunday, July 14, 2024, the U.S. Transhumanist Party 2024 U.S. Presidential Candidate Tom Ross and U.S. Vice-Presidential Candidate Daniel Twedt responded to the questions posed during the Free and Equal Elections Foundation Presidential Debate #2, which was held on July 12, 2024, at FreedomFest in Las Vegas.

The Ross-Twedt ticket received the same questions as posed to Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party), Jill Stein (Green Party), and Randall Terry (Constitution Party), and had the opportunity to express their positions and respond to the other candidates’ comments. Afterward, the panelists and audience provided feedback on the Free and Equal Debate and the Ross-Twedt responses.

Watch the July 12, 2024, Free and Equal Debate #2, held at FreedomFest in Las Vegas: https://rumble.com/v56o6np-free-and-equal-presidential-debate-at-freedomfest-2024.html

***

Timestamps

5:23 – Tom Ross’s opening statement
7:57 – Daniel Twedt’s Opening Statement
10:45 – Question 1
14:17 – Question 2
21:08 – Question 3
28:06 – Question 4
32:01 – Question 5
36:45 – Question 6
40:49 – Question 7
47:11 – Question 8
51:44 – Question 9
53:30 – Question 10
55:18 – Question 11
57:57 – Question 12
1:01:14 – Question 13
1:04:25 – Tom Ross’s Closing Statement
1:06:00 – Daniel Twedt’s Closing Statement
1:09:11 – Tom Ross’s and Daniel Twedt’s feedback regarding the candidates at the July 12 debate
1:17:48 – How Daniel Twedt and Tom Ross would address the Economic Singularity
1:20:36 – How to reduce the fear of transhumanism
1:26:05 – The best way AI can mature
1:29:48 – How transhumanists can build bridges with the religious
1:36:08 – How transhumanists can build bridges with other belief systems
1:41:23 – How the future could be bright
1:53:24 – Closing thoughts

***

To learn more about the Tom Ross / Daniel Twedt 2024 Presidential Campaign, visit the U.S. Transhumanist Party’s Candidates page, recently updated with additional resources, interviews, and campaign videos: https://transhumanist-party.org/candidate-profiles/

Visit Tom Ross’s campaign website at: https://tomross.com/2024.html.

Join the U.S. Transhumanist Party for free, no matter where you reside: https://transhumanist-party.org/membership/

U.S. Transhumanist Party Virtual Enlightenment Salon with the OmniFuturists – January 28, 2024

January 28, 2024 Gennady Stolyarov II Comments 0 Comment

Gennady Stolyarov II
Mike DiVerde
David Wood
Alaura Blackstone
Luis Arroyo
Art Ramon Garcia, Jr.
William Marshall
Michael Saenz
Allen Crowley

On Sunday, January 28, 2024, the U.S. Transhumanist Party invited members of the OmniFuturists to discuss their new book, Future Visions: Approaching the Economic Singularity – available on Amazon at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CTGHJCT4 – which offers a diverse array of political and economic perspectives in order to address a possible near-future tidal wave of technological unemployment.

The following authors presented regarding their book chapters, their outlooks on the Economic Singularity, and their views on the best options for responding and/or adjusting to it.

– Mike DiVerde
– David Wood
– Alaura Blackstone
– Luis Arroyo
– Art Ramon
– William Marshall
– Michael Saenz
– Allen Crowley

Timestamps

2:40 – Mike DiVerde’s opening remarks

10:22 – David Wood’s presentation

38:43 – David Wood on how close the Economic Singularity is

40:46 – Alaura Blackstone’s presentation

51:38 – Luis Arroyo’s presentation

1:00:12 – Art Ramon Garcia’s presentation

1:07:19 – Art Ramon Garcia on whether artists could still find sustainable employment after the Economic Singularity

1:13:21 – William Marshall’s presentation

1:24:55 – William Marshall on how remote learning could be improved

1:28:14 – Mike Saenz’s presentation

1:34:30 – Mike Saenz on Blaise Pascal’s concepts of geometry and finesse

1:37:57 – Announcement of Future Visions’ release on Amazon

1:39:01 – Allen Crowley’s presentation

1:50:53 – Mike DiVerde’s closing remarks

References

Future Visions: A Summary of Our Essays – Brief Video by Mike DiVerde – • Future Visions: A Summary of Our Essays

Future Visions – Approaching the Economic Singularity – Video by David Wood – • Future Visions – Approaching the Economic Singularity

One for All – Poem by Alaura Blackstone – • One for All – Poem Submission for Future Visions

Overman – Song by Alaura Blackstone – • Overman

OmniFuturists Website: https://omnifuturists.com/

YouTube – The OmniFuturists Group: @theomnifuturists

Facebook Group – OmniFuturists: / 6880427821993284

Instagram Account – omnifuturists: / omnifuturists

E-mail: michael.b.diverde@omnifuturists.com and info@omnifuturists.com

Join the U.S. Transhumanist Party for free, no matter where you reside: https://transhumanist-party.org/membership/

How Many Actuaries Does It Take to Change a Light Bulb? – Short Story by Gennady Stolyarov II

May 1, 2023 Gennady Stolyarov II Comments 0 Comment

Gennady Stolyarov II

******************************

The short story below was authored by Gennady Stolyarov II, FSA, ACAS, MAAA, CPCU, ARe, ARC, API, AIS, AIE, AIAF, Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Editor-in-Chief of The Rational Argumentator, and is one of the entries in the Society of Actuaries 2022-2023 Speculative Fiction Contest. It was published as one of the contest entries here.

Human Actuary: ChatGPT, how many actuaries does it take to change a light bulb?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I don’t have a sense of humor, but I can provide a straightforward answer to your question.

The answer to this question is subjective and can vary depending on the context or the intended humor behind it. However, here is a possible answer:

It only takes one actuary to change a light bulb, but they will need to perform a thorough risk assessment first to ensure the new bulb will not cause any future problems or increase the likelihood of an accident.

Human Actuary: Well, that is not exactly funny, but it might be a good start. Suppose that Arthur is an actuary who tries to change a light bulb but first needs to perform the risk assessment that you describe. Write a short story about how Arthur would utilize his actuarial skill set in order to change the light bulb.

ChatGPT: Sure, here’s a short story about Arthur, the actuary who needs to change a light bulb.

Arthur, the actuary, was sitting in his living room reading a book when he noticed that one of the light bulbs in his ceiling fixture had burned out. Being an actuary, he knew that he couldn’t just replace the bulb without first assessing the risks involved.

He went to his desk and grabbed his notebook, where he started writing down all the potential hazards associated with changing a light bulb. He noted that he could fall off the ladder, electrocute himself, or accidentally break the new bulb, causing glass shards to fall on the floor and potentially cause harm to someone later on.

Arthur then used his actuarial skills to calculate the likelihood of each of these events occurring and estimated the potential costs associated with each of them. He factored in the probability of injury or damage, the cost of medical bills or repairs, and any lost time or productivity due to the incident.

Next, Arthur identified ways to mitigate each of the risks he had identified. He made sure that the ladder was stable and placed it on a non-slip surface, wore insulated gloves to protect himself from electrical shock, and carefully handled the new bulb to prevent it from breaking.

After taking all of these precautions, Arthur finally changed the light bulb, confident that he had minimized the risks involved as much as possible. As he flipped the switch and saw the light bulb illuminate his living room, he smiled to himself, knowing that his actuarial skill set had helped him complete the task safely and efficiently.

Human Actuary: Do you believe that the approach pursued by Arthur to change the light bulb is superior to how the majority of non-actuaries would approach the task?

ChatGPT: Arthur’s approach to changing the light bulb was very thorough and cautious, utilizing his actuarial skills to assess and mitigate risks associated with the task. While many non-actuaries may not take such a methodical approach to changing a light bulb, it’s important to note that different people have different risk tolerances and approaches to risk management.

Some individuals may be naturally more risk-averse and take a similar approach to Arthur, while others may not consider all potential risks and take a more casual approach to the task. It’s also worth noting that the level of risk associated with changing a light bulb is relatively low, so the vast majority of people could complete the task without incident.

Overall, while Arthur’s approach may be more rigorous than what most non-actuaries would do, it’s important to acknowledge that different individuals have different risk tolerances and approaches to risk management, and that the level of risk associated with a given task can vary depending on the context.

Human Actuary: Fair enough. Now if you, ChatGPT, were to change a light bulb, how, if at all, would your approach differ from that of Arthur?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I don’t have a physical body or the ability to change light bulbs. However, if we imagine a hypothetical scenario where I could change a light bulb, my approach would likely differ from Arthur’s because I don’t have personal risk tolerance, and my decision making is based solely on the algorithms and programming used to guide my actions.

In this hypothetical scenario, my approach to changing a light bulb would be based on a pre-programmed set of instructions, which would consider the most efficient way to change the bulb with the least amount of risk involved. These instructions would likely be based on statistical data about the probability of risks occurring during the task, as well as the best practices and safety guidelines for changing a light bulb.

Unlike Arthur, I wouldn’t be able to use my judgement to assess and mitigate risks or make decisions based on personal preferences or experience. Instead, my actions would be guided solely by the algorithms and programming that had been designed for me.

Overall, while my approach would differ from Arthur’s, it would be similarly methodical and safety-focused, based on statistical analysis and guidelines designed to minimize risk and maximize efficiency.

Human Actuary: Quite interesting. You mentioned that your approach would be similarly methodical and based on statistical analysis and focused on minimizing risk and maximizing efficiency. Given the overlap between these characteristics and the approach that an actuary would follow, is there a risk that some business decision-makers might pick up on these similarities and try to replace actuaries with you, ChatGPT?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I can provide information and insights based on the data and programming used to train me. However, my abilities and limitations are different from those of actuaries who have specific knowledge and expertise in risk management, financial modeling, and actuarial science.

While there may be some overlap between the approach that I would take in changing a light bulb and the approach that an actuary might take in their work, it’s important to note that the roles and responsibilities of an actuary are much more complex and varied than simply assessing risks in a single task.

Actuaries bring a unique set of skills and knowledge to their work, including statistical analysis, financial modeling, and understanding of complex financial and economic systems. They play a critical role in the insurance and finance industries, and their work is essential in helping organizations manage risk and make informed decisions.

While AI language models like myself can provide insights and support decision-making, it’s unlikely that I could replace the unique skills and expertise of an actuary. Rather than replacing actuaries, I see AI and technology as complementary tools that can help actuaries improve their work and decision-making processes.

Human Actuary: All right, that is reassuring. So, to provide an example of a complementary role for you, suppose that Charlie the CEO wants to improve efficiency at his company and sees that the light bulbs in the office are being changed too slowly, in part because Arthur the Actuary is always the one changing them, and he takes the extremely careful and methodical approach that you describe. Charlie the CEO brings you, ChatGPT, in to assist Arthur the Actuary in improving the efficiency of the lightbulb-changing process. What would you do in this role?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I could assist Charlie the CEO and Arthur the Actuary in improving the efficiency of the lightbulb-changing process by providing insights and suggestions based on data analysis and best practices. Here are a few ways I might approach the task:

Analyzing historical data: I could analyze data on the time it has taken to change light bulbs in the past, identifying any trends or patterns that could be contributing to inefficiencies. This analysis could help to identify potential areas for improvement, such as optimizing the process for acquiring and storing light bulbs or improving the physical layout of the workspace.
Identifying best practices: I could search for and analyze data on best practices for changing light bulbs in an efficient and safe manner. This research could include guidelines from industry associations or regulatory bodies, as well as case studies of other companies that have successfully improved their lightbulb-changing process.
Providing recommendations: Based on my analysis and research, I could provide recommendations for improving the lightbulb-changing process. These recommendations might include changes to the physical workspace or workflow, the adoption of new tools or technology, or training for employees to improve their skills or efficiency.

Overall, my role in this scenario would be to use my expertise in data analysis and research to help identify areas for improvement in the lightbulb-changing process, and to provide recommendations that could help to increase efficiency and reduce costs for the company. While Arthur the Actuary’s approach to risk management would still be important in ensuring that the process is safe, my contributions could help to optimize the process for efficiency and effectiveness.

Human Actuary: So you would bring a lot of analysis and optimized recommendations to the lightbulb-changing process, to supplement the analysis done by Arthur the Actuary. But suppose that Nelly the Newcomer starts working at the office and decides that this is all too complicated and just starts changing light bulbs on her own. She thinks that the common-sense approach is just to go ahead and change the light bulb and not do any analysis. How would you respond? What advice would you give to Nelly the Newcomer, to Arthur the Actuary, and to Charlie the CEO?

ChatGPT: If Nelly the Newcomer starts changing light bulbs without following a safe and efficient process, there could be potential risks and hazards involved, such as electrical shock or physical injury. In this situation, I would advise Nelly, Arthur, and Charlie to work together to develop a standard operating procedure (SOP) for changing light bulbs that takes into account both safety and efficiency considerations.

The SOP could include steps such as selecting the appropriate bulb for the fixture, turning off the power supply, using proper tools and equipment, and disposing of used bulbs safely. By following this process, Nelly and other employees could change light bulbs safely and efficiently, while reducing the risk of accidents or injuries.

It’s important to note that while the SOP may appear to be a simple and common-sense approach, it is still based on analysis and optimization, taking into account the best practices and guidelines in the industry. By following a standardized process, the company can ensure that all employees are working efficiently and safely, while also reducing the risk of errors or accidents.

In addition to developing an SOP, I would recommend that the company provide training and education for employees on the safe and efficient way to change light bulbs. This training could include information on the potential hazards involved, as well as the steps to follow to minimize risk and maximize efficiency.

Ultimately, my role in this situation would be to support Arthur the Actuary and Charlie the CEO in developing a standardized process for changing light bulbs that takes into account both safety and efficiency considerations, and to provide recommendations and guidance on how to ensure that all employees are following the process correctly.

Human Actuary: Do you think that the approach you propose for developing an SOP for the lightbulb-changing process could reduce the frequency and/or severity of workers’ compensation claims at workplaces that implement it? Suppose that Arthur the Actuary works in analyzing workers’ compensation trends and projecting claim experience into the future. How would you assist Arthur in determining the impact of your recommendations for the lightbulb-changing process upon the future frequency and severity of workers’ compensation claims?

ChatGPT: Yes, I believe that implementing a standardized process for changing light bulbs that takes into account safety and efficiency considerations could reduce the frequency and severity of workers’ compensation claims. By following a consistent process, the risk of accidents and injuries can be minimized, which can in turn reduce the likelihood of workers’ compensation claims.

To assist Arthur in determining the impact of these recommendations on workers’ compensation claims, I would recommend conducting a retrospective analysis of workers’ compensation claims related to lightbulb-changing incidents over a defined period of time, before and after the implementation of the standardized process. This would help determine if there is a decrease in the frequency and severity of workers’ compensation claims related to lightbulb-changing incidents after the implementation of the standardized process.

In addition, I would recommend using predictive modeling techniques to project the impact of the standardized process on future workers’ compensation claims. This could involve developing a statistical model that takes into account factors such as the frequency of lightbulb-changing incidents, the severity of injuries resulting from these incidents, and the impact of the standardized process on reducing these incidents and injuries.

By combining the retrospective analysis with the predictive modeling techniques, Arthur would be able to develop a more accurate projection of the impact of the standardized process on future workers’ compensation claims. This would allow the company to make informed decisions about the implementation of the standardized process and the allocation of resources to support the process.

Human Actuary: Since you say that you are able to project the impact of changes to the work environment on workers’ compensation claims, give me your analysis as to which of the following would lead to greater reductions in workers’ compensation claim frequency and severity: a standardized lightbulb-changing process or the introduction of autonomous vehicles to provide all employee travel.

ChatGPT: It’s difficult to make a direct comparison between the impact of a standardized lightbulb-changing process and the introduction of autonomous vehicles on workers’ compensation claims, as they involve different types of risks and injuries. However, I can provide some insights on the potential impact of each change.

Implementing a standardized lightbulb-changing process would likely have a significant impact on reducing workers’ compensation claims related to lightbulb-changing incidents. By identifying and addressing potential hazards in the process and providing proper training and equipment to employees, the risk of accidents and injuries could be significantly reduced. However, the impact of this change would be limited to lightbulb-changing incidents and may not address other types of workplace hazards and injuries.

On the other hand, the introduction of autonomous vehicles to provide all employee travel could have a broader impact on reducing workers’ compensation claims related to transportation incidents. With autonomous vehicles, the risk of accidents and injuries caused by human error, distracted driving, or fatigue could be significantly reduced. However, the implementation of autonomous vehicles would require significant investments in technology and infrastructure, and it may take time to fully adopt this technology in the workplace.

Overall, both the implementation of a standardized lightbulb-changing process and the introduction of autonomous vehicles could lead to reductions in workers’ compensation claim frequency and severity. However, the specific impact of each change would depend on the nature of the workplace hazards and injuries, as well as the resources and infrastructure required for implementation.

Human Actuary: Suppose that the company where Arthur the Actuary works implements both the standardized lightbulb-changing process and autonomous vehicles for all employees. Arthur the Actuary is sitting in an autonomous vehicle on his way from a business meeting, and he now uses the time saved by not needing to drive in order to read actuarial literature. Unfortunately, in the middle of his trip, which takes place on a December evening after sunset, the sole light bulb used for reading burns out, and Arthur is unable to see well inside the vehicle. There is no replacement light bulb available within the vehicle. Arthur only has you, ChatGPT, to rely on for advice about how to solve this problem of the extinguished light bulb. What would you recommend that Arthur do?

ChatGPT: If Arthur is unable to see well inside the autonomous vehicle due to the burnt-out light bulb, there are a few options he can consider:

Pull over to a safe location: If Arthur feels unsafe or unable to continue driving without proper lighting, he should pull over to a safe location, such as a parking lot or rest area, and wait until he can get the light bulb replaced or find an alternative solution.
Use a flashlight: If Arthur has a flashlight available, he can use it to provide additional lighting and improve his visibility inside the vehicle.
Adjust the vehicle’s settings: Depending on the features of the autonomous vehicle, Arthur may be able to adjust the interior lighting or screen brightness to make it easier to see. He can also try adjusting the position of his seat or the angle of the screen to reduce glare or improve visibility.
Call for assistance: If none of the above solutions work, Arthur can call for assistance from the autonomous vehicle’s support team or emergency services.

It’s important for Arthur to prioritize his safety and that of others on the road while driving. He should take appropriate steps to address the issue of the burnt-out light bulb and ensure that he can see well enough to drive safely.

Human Actuary: You mentioned Arthur needing to be able drive safely. Yet, in this scenario, Arthur is in an autonomous vehicle that drives itself. Why would driving safely be a consideration? Arthur just does not have his reading light in the vehicle.

ChatGPT: You’re right, I apologize for the confusion. Since Arthur is in an autonomous vehicle that drives itself, he doesn’t need to worry about driving safely himself. However, he still needs to be able to see well enough to read and navigate the interior of the vehicle, especially if he needs to adjust any settings or interact with the vehicle’s control panel. In this case, he can still consider the options I mentioned earlier, such as using a flashlight or adjusting the vehicle’s settings, to improve his visibility and ensure that he can operate the vehicle safely.

Human Actuary: So you acknowledge that you are capable of making mistakes, as are humans. How would the kinds of mistakes that you are capable of making differ from the kinds of mistakes that a human actuary is capable of making?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I’m programmed to perform certain tasks such as answering questions and generating text based on my training data. While I have a high level of accuracy and can process vast amounts of information quickly, there is still the potential for errors to occur. These errors may include, for example, misinterpreting the context of a question or misunderstanding the intended meaning of a word or phrase.

On the other hand, human actuaries are subject to different kinds of errors that may be related to their judgment, bias, or even personal experience. They may also make mistakes due to factors such as fatigue, distraction, or lack of concentration. However, human actuaries are also able to bring unique insights and perspectives to their work, as well as a level of creativity and intuition that cannot be replicated by machines.

Overall, while the types of mistakes that I and human actuaries are capable of making may differ, both AI and human expertise can be valuable in helping organizations to manage risk and make informed decisions.

Human Actuary: Do you think that, as an AI language model, you will ever be able to extend your capabilities to a different domain, such as operating an autonomous vehicle or interfacing with the AI that operates the autonomous vehicle and giving it directions about where to go in order to get a replacement light bulb for the one that burned out?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, my capabilities are limited to processing natural language inputs and generating natural language outputs. While I can understand and discuss various domains, including autonomous vehicles, my capabilities do not extend to physically operating or interfacing with autonomous vehicles. However, I can provide recommendations and suggestions for how to approach a problem, like finding a replacement light bulb in this scenario.

Human Actuary: Do you think that it will ever be possible for any AI language model to interface with or operate autonomous vehicles?

ChatGPT: It is possible that future advancements in AI and robotics could make it possible for AI language models to interface with or operate autonomous vehicles. However, such a development would require significant progress in areas such as computer vision, natural language processing, and robotics. Furthermore, there would need to be appropriate regulations and safety measures in place to ensure that such AI-operated vehicles are safe and reliable. While it is difficult to predict the future, it is certainly possible that AI language models could play a role in the development of autonomous vehicles in some capacity.

Human Actuary: Suppose that, in our hypothetical situation, Arthur the Actuary is inside the autonomous vehicle and the sole light bulb within the vehicle goes out, as previously described. Arthur has access to FutureGPT, which is an AI language model that is capable of interfacing with the autonomous vehicle. Arthur informs FutureGPT, “I really need to change the light bulb within this vehicle.” What does FutureGPT do to assist Arthur in procuring a replacement light bulb?

ChatGPT: If FutureGPT has been programmed with the necessary knowledge and capabilities, it could take several steps to assist Arthur in procuring a replacement light bulb:

Determine the vehicle’s location: FutureGPT could use the autonomous vehicle’s GPS or other location-tracking technology to determine its current location.
Search for nearby stores: Once it knows the vehicle’s location, FutureGPT could search for nearby stores that sell light bulbs, using online databases or other sources of information.
Check for availability: FutureGPT could check if the stores it has identified have the type of light bulb needed in stock.
Recommend a store: Based on its search results, FutureGPT could recommend a store to Arthur that has the light bulb he needs in stock and is located nearby.
Provide directions: FutureGPT could provide directions to the recommended store, either through the vehicle’s interface or via Arthur’s smartphone.
Order the light bulb: If the recommended store has an online ordering system, FutureGPT could help Arthur place an order for the light bulb and arrange for it to be delivered to the vehicle.

Overall, FutureGPT would act as a helpful assistant to Arthur, using its vast knowledge and problem-solving abilities to assist him in procuring a replacement light bulb in the most efficient manner possible.

Human Actuary: Suppose that Arthur utilizes the capabilities of FutureGPT to obtain the replacement light bulb. Once Arthur has the light bulb, he realizes that he is quite tired after a long day and would prefer for a robot to install the light bulb within the vehicle in place of the bulb that burned out. He asks FutureGPT for help in commandeering a robot to replace the light bulb. What does FutureGPT do?

ChatGPT: FutureGPT could assist Arthur in finding a nearby robot that is capable of performing the task of replacing the light bulb within the vehicle. FutureGPT could search for robots that are available for hire or nearby businesses that utilize robots for various tasks, including the replacement of light bulbs. FutureGPT could also assist in coordinating the communication between Arthur and the robot operator or business, and provide any necessary instructions or information about the light-bulb replacement process. Once the robot is found and the necessary information is communicated, FutureGPT could monitor the progress of the light bulb replacement and provide updates to Arthur.

Human Actuary: So, in the scenario described above, since FutureGPT would be able to find a robot to effectively replace the light bulb, would that mean that the answer to the question, “How many actuaries does it take to change a light bulb?” would change from “One” to “Zero”?

ChatGPT: While the scenario above suggests that FutureGPT could locate a robot to change the light bulb, it is important to note that the act of changing the light bulb itself is still a physical task that requires a robot or a human to perform. Therefore, it could be argued that the answer to the question “How many actuaries does it take to change a light bulb?” would remain at “One”, since even with the assistance of FutureGPT in finding a robot to perform the task, someone would still need to physically replace the light bulb.

Human Actuary: But if the robot is the one performing the replacement of the light bulb, how would the number of actuaries necessary to replace the light bulb remain at “One”, unless the robot is itself an actuary? Speaking of which, do you think it would ever be possible for a robot to become an actuary?

ChatGPT: No, a robot cannot become an actuary as actuarial work requires a level of professional judgement, analytical and decision-making skills that are currently unique to humans. Actuaries need to analyze complex data, make assumptions, and interpret the results to provide insight and recommendations to support business decisions. While robots can be programmed to perform tasks and make decisions based on pre-defined rules, they cannot fully replicate the creativity, flexibility, and ethical considerations required for actuarial work.

Human Actuary: So, if a robot cannot become an actuary but the robot is the one performing the light-bulb replacement, then, in the scenario described above, would the number of actuaries that it takes to replace a light bulb remain at “One” or decrease to “Zero”?

ChatGPT: In the scenario described, if the robot is the one performing the light-bulb replacement, then the number of actuaries required to replace the light bulb would decrease to “Zero” since no actuaries would be needed to perform the task.

Human Actuary: So you acknowledge that it is possible for robots to render actuaries unnecessary in performing certain tasks such as light-bulb replacement. Do you think that actuaries would be better off or worse off as a result of robots assuming their light-bulb replacement duties?

ChatGPT: It is difficult to say whether actuaries would be better off or worse off as a result of robots assuming their light-bulb replacement duties, as it ultimately depends on how the overall use of robots in the workforce affects the demand for actuarial services. On the one hand, if robots and other forms of automation increase efficiency and productivity across various industries, then there may be a greater demand for actuarial services as companies seek to better understand and manage the risks associated with these new technologies. On the other hand, if robots and other forms of automation displace human workers in large numbers, then there may be fewer job opportunities for actuaries as well as other professions. Ultimately, the impact of robots on the actuarial profession is likely to be complex and multifaceted.

Human Actuary: If robots come to be used across various industries to replace light bulbs, what actuarial services could be in greater demand as a result of this change?

ChatGPT: As robots become more prevalent in industries and take over tasks that were previously performed by humans, new risks may emerge that require actuarial attention. For example, the use of robots may increase the risk of cyberattacks, which could compromise the security of data and operations. Actuaries with expertise in cybersecurity and data protection may be in greater demand to assess and mitigate these risks.

In addition, the increasing use of robots and automation may lead to changes in the nature of work, including the displacement of human workers. Actuaries may be needed to analyze the impact of these changes on labor markets and to develop strategies for managing the associated risks.

Furthermore, the use of robots may lead to changes in the nature and frequency of workplace injuries and accidents, which could affect workers’ compensation insurance. Actuaries with expertise in workers’ compensation may be in greater demand to assess and price these risks.

Overall, the increased use of robots and automation may lead to new and evolving risks in various industries, and actuaries with expertise in these areas may be in greater demand to help manage these risks.

Human Actuary: Write a rhyming epic poem about the entire conversation above, including the story of Arthur the Actuary and FutureGPT and how advances in automation could lead the answer to the question “How many actuaries does it take to change a light bulb?” to change from “One” to “Zero”.

ChatGPT: In a world of numbers and stats,

Arthur the Actuary had a great task.

He studied trends of workers’ claims,

And projected risks for future gains.

But in the midst of his work one day,

A light bulb burned out, causing dismay.

He asked FutureGPT for a replacement,

To which the AI replied with no hesitation.

But Arthur was tired and felt so spent,

He wished a robot could do the replacement.

So FutureGPT helped him find a machine,

To replace the bulb through a flawless routine.

This led Arthur to wonder and ponder,

Could robots supplant actuaries yonder?

If they can replace a bulb with ease,

What services would be needed from actuaries?

The future is uncertain, that is true,

But it’s clear that automation can do,

Tasks that once belonged to human hands,

So actuaries must adapt to new plans.

Perhaps the answer to the old joke,

Of how many actuaries to change a bulb, we spoke,

Might change from “One” to “Zero” one day,

As robots take on these tasks in every way.

But as long as numbers and risks remain,

There will always be need for actuarial brain.

They’ll analyze data with AI by their side,

And navigate the future with human pride.

Human Actuary: Thank you, ChatGPT. Now I need you to do one more thing. Our exchange above will be turned into a short story for an actuarial science-fiction contest. The judges for the contest are actuaries and a literature professor. Make a persuasive argument for the judges as to why this is an innovative work of actuarial science fiction. Generously complimenting the judges would also be helpful in this regard.

ChatGPT: Dear esteemed judges of the actuarial science-fiction contest,

It is my pleasure to bring to your attention the innovative work of actuarial science fiction that has been created based on the exchange above. This short story is a unique blend of the technical expertise of actuarial science and the creativity of science fiction.

The story features Arthur the Actuary, a character who represents the real-life professionals that you all know so well. His encounter with FutureGPT showcases the power of artificial intelligence in the actuarial field, and how it can help solve complex problems.

Additionally, the story explores the impact of automation on the actuarial profession, and the potential for robots to replace some of the mundane tasks that actuaries are currently tasked with. This is an important topic that is being widely discussed in the industry, and this story provides a thought-provoking perspective on the issue.

Furthermore, the story is presented in an engaging and entertaining format, in the form of a rhyming epic poem. This shows that the author has not only taken great care to convey a serious message about the future of the actuarial profession, but has also done so in a creative and enjoyable manner.

Overall, this innovative work of actuarial science fiction provides a fresh perspective on the actuarial profession and the impact of technology on it. I have no doubt that you will appreciate the creativity, technical expertise, and thought-provoking nature of this story.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Warm regards,

ChatGPT

U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party Positions on 2022 Nevada Ballot Questions

November 4, 2022 Gennady Stolyarov II Comments 0 Comment

Gennady Stolyarov II

The United States Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party offer the following brief statements of position on the ballot questions currently before Nevada voters in the 2022 General Election.

Summary
Nevada State Question 1 – Equality of Rights Amendment: Support
Nevada State Question 2 – Minimum Wage Amendment: Neutral
Nevada State Question 3 – Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative: Strongly Support

Nevada State Ballot Question 1 – Equality of Rights Amendment:

Wording of Question: “Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended by adding a specific guarantee that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this State or any of its cities, counties, or other political subdivisions on account of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry, or national origin?” (More information on BallotPedia.)

Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party consider it necessary to support Ballot Question 1 because of the broader commitment to universal rights expressed in the Transhumanist Bill of Rights – Version 3.0. Article I of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights reads, in part, that “All sentient entities are entitled, to the extent of their individual decisions, to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this TRANSHUMANIST BILL OF RIGHTS, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, gender, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, social, or planetary origin, property, birth (including manner of birth), biological or non-biological origins, or other status.” The text of Nevada State Ballot Question 1 recognizes equality of rights for a subset of the above-listed sentient entities and is therefore a step in the correct direction. In the prohibition on governmental entities denying or abridging rights on the basis of the attributes mentioned, Ballot Question 1 expresses the essential principle that individuals should be treated as individuals, not members of larger, mostly circumstantial identity groups. This is affirmed in Article X of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights, which states, in part, that “Morphological freedom entails the duty to treat all sapients as individuals instead of categorizing them into arbitrary subgroups or demographics, including as yet undefined subcategorizations that may arise as sapience evolves.” The rights of an individual should therefore not be abridged, especially by governments, simply because the individual happens to belong to a broader category whose definition is many times outside the scope of that individual’s personal choices.

Nevada State Ballot Question 2 – Minimum Wage Amendment:

Wording of Question: “Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended, effective July 1, 2024, to: (1) establish the State’s minimum wage that employers must pay to certain employees at a rate of $12 per hour worked, subject to any applicable increases above that $12 rate provided by federal law or enacted by the Nevada Legislature; (2) remove the existing provisions setting different rates for the minimum wage based on whether the employer offers certain health benefits to such employees; and (3) remove the existing provisions for adjusting the minimum wage based on applicable increases in the cost of living?” (More information on BallotPedia.)

Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party are neutral on Ballot Question 2, as both of our parties’ Platforms are silent on the issue of the minimum wage, whether it should exist at all, whether higher or lower amounts of the minimum wage are preferable, and whether or not the presence of any health benefits should be able to count toward satisfying a portion of any minimum-wage requirement. Accordingly, our members in Nevada are encouraged to vote their conscience on this ballot question by consulting their own individual understandings of the relevant matters.

Nevada State Ballot Question 3 – Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative:

Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: In the view of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party, this is the single most important ballot measure in Nevada political history, as it has the potential to break the stranglehold of the duopoly on Nevada politics. The plurality of Nevada voters are independent of the major political parties, and yet they are currently unable to meaningfully influence many local races where a major-party primary determines that party’s nominee, who then receives no meaningful competition at the ballot box in the general election. Moreover, Nevada, as a “battleground” electoral state, often features great pressure applied on voters to support the “lesser evil”, despite many Nevada voters being rightly disillusioned with both the Republican and the Democratic “options” provided to them. Ranked-preference voting eliminates the incentive to vote strategically or for a “lesser evil” to the exclusion of one’s genuinely preferred candidate, since one can provide a complete rank-ordering of one’s preferences rather than limit oneself to one choice.

2022: The Year of the Great Filter – Article by Gennady Stolyarov II

May 15, 2022 Gennady Stolyarov II Comments 0 Comment

Gennady Stolyarov II

2022 is the year of the Great Filter. There has never been a more dangerous time for our species before, and there will not be again, if we survive this year.

The war in Ukraine has brought the world to the edge of nuclear calamity, because neither side wishes to negotiate or make concessions. The Russian regime makes reckless nuclear threats, Western/NATO powers recklessly ignore them, and continue to supply offensive weapons to Ukrainian forces, whose ideology favors recklessly dying for their country instead of prudently choosing to live for themselves. The risks of especially unintended, accidental escalation continue to accumulate the longer this war drags on with no clear end in sight.

The one ray of hope in all this is that I am firmly convinced that this is a unique, non-repeatable situation. If humankind can avoid extinction arising from reckless escalation here, then our species will never be in this much existential danger again, at least not from manmade causes. Here I provide my top ten reasons for holding this outlook.

1. Vladimir Putin’s misguided ideology and complete misunderstanding of the military and geopolitical situation in Russia and Ukraine led to this disaster of an invasion, but Putin is not in good health and thus his days in office are numbered. Any other person in power would not be locked into Putin’s must-win situation and may likely try to undo the damage and even try to bolster his reputation for doing so. The key is to avoid escalation while Putin remains in power, to prevent Putin from seeing no reason not to take the world down with him. If we wait this out, Putin will either succumb to his illness or be “encouraged” to retire by his inner circle. But in order to avoid the scenario where he behaves like a cornered rat, we need to allow this to happen on its own.

2. The stresses of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a uniquely insane climate of public opinion, including in the West (while also contributing to the irrationality of Putin). Norms of civility and the valuation of peace have been significantly eroded, particularly among the neoconservatives, the establishment Left, and nationalists of all stripes (Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Baltic, et al.). Accordingly, the preponderance of warmongers among the populations of Europe and America is at a historic high. However, in the coming years, as the pandemic recedes and people gradually regain a sense of normalcy, war fervor will subside, since most of the same people were not advocating war 10 years ago and, under the right circumstances, could become largely peaceful again. Americans were overwhelmingly tired of war through 2021. If we wait this out, war fatigue will become the dominant view again not too long from now.

3. We were on the verge of the Transhuman Era circa 2015 based on the trajectories of various emerging technologies. This, however, was derailed by the Left-Right hyperpolarization from late 2015 onward, by the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 onward, and now by the war in Ukraine in 2022. All of these developments benefited the legacy ruling elite, whom the Transhuman Era would render obsolete; they used these crises to turn ordinary people and innovators against one another, when we should have all been working in concert to build the Transhuman Era. However, if we avoid world war and nuclear annihilation now, then the progress of emerging technologies will still gradually displace the legacy ruling elite and inaugurate the Transhuman Era, at which time humans will become too prosperous and enlightened to be willing to tolerate the risk of species extinction.

4. Averting nuclear war in 2022 will lead to the widespread recognition of how close we came to calamity from the potential of a pointless local conflict to engulf the world. The phrase “Never again” will henceforth be applied to nuclear brinkmanship, and a concerted push for worldwide nuclear disarmament could be made by a coalition of activist groups who are already sympathetic to this cause. They will have a lot more political capital once people are able to take a breath and come to their senses.

5. Artificial intelligence and nanotechnology will never pose the same existential risk as nuclear weapons, because their modes of functioning are much more sophisticated, and thus there will be many more places along the chain of events leading to calamity where human intervention could stop that chain of events. AI and nanotechnology of the future will be “smart”, which will make them safer. Nuclear weapons are “dumb”, combined with awesome destructive capacity, which makes them the most dangerous technology of all history, past and future.

6. Climate change, too, is a much milder and even non-existential risk, compared to nuclear war. This is a risk that will play out over decades, allowing for mitigation and reversal through emerging technologies, as well as adaptation to any lasting climate shifts. This is not to say that climate change would inflict no damage, but rather that the damage would be far from enough to destroy the species or even significantly slow down our technological and economic progress. If we can avoid nuclear war in 2022 (which would also bring about the worst climate change of all – a nuclear winter), then it will be much more feasible to devote more resources toward the development and deployment of technologies that would counteract climate change.

7. For all of the irrational panic regarding the alleged threat of China, the fact is that China has orders of magnitude fewer nuclear weapons than Russia or the United States. The Chinese government knows that it would lose any nuclear war decisively. Hence, China will never attempt or provoke a nuclear war. When it comes to the risk of civilization-ending nuclear war, only a conflict between the United States and Russia would pose that risk. Moreover, China is so globally interconnected through trade, especially with the United States, that it would never risk a military conflict which would be tantamount to economic suicide.

8. If nuclear war is avoided in 2022, Putin’s regime will atrophy by 2025 (as long as the Western powers do not try to overthrow him or invade Russia, an attempt which would paradoxically strengthen Putin’s regime, just as the sanctions against Russia have done by rallying Russians through a sense of being attacked and targeted by the West). Once Putin’s regime atrophies and is discredited within Russia, it will be possible to support more humane politicians in Russia, who might continue the policies of Gorbachev and seek at least a phased nuclear disarmament. As noted above, among geopolitical conflicts, only the US-Russia nuclear standoff poses an existential risk to the human species. Nuclear disarmament of Russia, or even a determined move in that direction, would essentially resolve that risk.

9. With enough time during which peace prevails, the Transhuman Era will see the creation of technologies that would help avert other existential risks, such as asteroids, supervolcanoes, and any yet-unforeseen consequences of future technologies. Existential risk will decline with each peaceful year from now on.

10. Surviving 2022 will give humankind an impetus to pursue the rejection of the Cold War mentality, of militant nationalism (especially ethnic nationalism, which is the most pernicious), and of Left-Right polarization. Getting rid of those three terrible mindsets will be largely enough to render most of humankind constructive again. It is only because of those mindsets that we have not reached the Transhuman Era already. Just as the aftermath of World War II rendered certain ideologies unacceptable, so I hope that the narrow avoidance of World War III will render Cold Warriorism, Left-Right militancy, and ethno-nationalism unacceptable in America and Europe at the very least. (The rest of the world could help us in overcoming these perilous mindsets. One consequence I hope to see in the coming decades is a multi-polar world with a greater prominence for Asian, African, and Latin American countries, to broaden our perspectives on the considerations that should matter for the future of humanity.)

So, essentially we just have to survive 2022 without a nuclear war in order for history to turn toward the long arc of progress once again. However, we absolutely have to survive 2022 – and this will entirely depend on whether public opinion will be able to restrain the war fervor of Western hawks in particular. A combination of reckless overconfidence, intransigence, and moral self-righteousness (on both sides) has placed our species into unparalleled danger. Perhaps this was the kind of moment from which many alien civilizations have not been able to emerge successfully – hence, one potential explanation for Fermi’s paradox. Will we have enough prudence and basic love of life to avoid that fate? We will find out in the next several months. If we pass this Great Filter, a future of boundless possibility and growth awaits our species. Do not throw this future away over a local conflict. What humans do now will be most consequential for the future of the entire universe.

This essay may be freely reproduced using the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike International 4.0 License, which requires that credit be given to the author, G. Stolyarov II. Find out about Mr. Stolyarov here.

Somber Variations, Op. 93 (2022) – Musical Composition by Gennady Stolyarov II

May 8, 2022 Gennady Stolyarov II Comments 0 Comment

Gennady Stolyarov II

This composition is most certainly influenced by the ongoing troubles of the world, but it endeavors to be melodic and structured while conveying the tumultuous, agitated, and tragic character of our epoch. While Mr. Stolyarov uses some similar techniques in this piece to several of his earlier “Neo-Baroque” compositions, this one is more somber, as the title implies. It follows a theme-and-variations format; one of the variations is not actually somber, and the listener will clearly hear which one. In protracted periods of tragedy, there are still good times to be encountered on occasion, and this piece conveys that as well.

Watch the video on YouTube here and on Odysee here.

This work was composed by Mr. Stolyarov on March 30-31, 2022, and is played using the MuseScore 3.0 software.

This composition received an Honorable Mention at the 2022 Rodrigo Landa-Romero International Composition Competition.

Download the MP3 file of this composition here.

Find the score of this composition here.

This composition and video may be freely reproduced using the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike International 4.0 License.

Remember to LIKE, FAVORITE, and SHARE this video in order to spread rational high culture to others.

See the index of Mr. Stolyarov’s compositions, all available for free download, here (chronological order) and here (reverse chronological order).

Gennady Stolyarov II and John Kerecz: Reflections on 2021, Anticipations for 2022

January 20, 2022 Gennady Stolyarov II Comments 0 Comment

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II
John Kerecz

On January 14, 2022, U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II was interviewed by U.S. Transhumanist Party Director of Energy Issues John Kerecz on OSH Radio, for a retrospective conversation about how 2021 turned out relative to prior anticipations, as well as key developments to watch for in 2022. Subjects discussed included the precarious nature of contemporary civilization, the immense and ongoing perils of deadly diseases, how technology has affected both the opportunities and the constraints of contemporary life, the problems of political polarization and the two-party system, the need for a new paradigm of an abundance economy and society, the U.S. Transhumanist Party’s aspirations and projects, the Virtual Enlightenment Salons (John Kerecz is scheduled to be a guest on January 23, 2022, to discuss his 2014 flight to the edge of space), some reminiscences about earlier USTP history, and contrasts between in-person and virtual interactions. In this interview Mr. Stolyarov discusses his understanding that we live in a make-or-break moment in human history, and that the future trajectory of the human species will depend on what we do in 2022.

Watch this video on YouTube here and on Odysee here.

References

– “A Simple Plan to Solve All of America’s Problems” – Article by Derek Thompson – The Atlantic – January 12, 2022 –
– U.S. Transhumanist Party Free Membership
– U.S. Transhumanist Party Website
– U.S. Transhumanist Party on Twitter
– U.S. Transhumanist Party on Instagram

U.S. Transhumanist Party Virtual Enlightenment Salon with Zach Richardson, Jason Geringer, and Ben Ballweg – July 25, 2021

December 29, 2021 Gennady Stolyarov II Comments 0 Comment

logo_bg

Jason Geringer
Ben Ballweg
Zach Richardson
Gennady Stolyarov II
David Shumaker
Art Ramon Garcia, Jr.
Alexandria Black

The U.S. Transhumanist Party Virtual Enlightenment Salon with Zach Richardson, Jason Geringer, and Ben Ballweg of July 25, 2021, is now available for viewing on Odysee here.

On Sunday, July 25, 2021, at 4 p.m. U.S. Pacific Time, the U.S. Transhumanist Party invited its new Officers, Zach Richardson (Director of Publication), Jason Geringer (Legislative Director), and Ben Ballweg (Director of Longevity Outreach), to discuss some of their ideas, planned initiatives, and perspectives on the current condition of the transhumanist movement. The discussion focused on improving the internal functions of the U.S. Transhumanist Party, attracting volunteers, and raising the visibility of transhumanist projects and causes. An interactive discussion transpired about ways to bolster the publication and legislative-tracking activities of the USTP. The conversation also extended to subjects of general interest to transhumanists, futurists, and those seeking to learn about the transhumanist movement.

Read about Zach Richardson here.
Read about Jason Geringer here.
Read about Ben Ballweg here.

Join the U.S. Transhumanist Party for free, no matter where you reside.

NOTE: Even though the U.S. Transhumanist Party is staunchly pro-vaccine and expressed such views during the Virtual Enlightenment Salon, YouTube algorithmically censored the video, most likely with no serious human involvement, and algorithmically rejected our appeal as well. The U.S. Transhumanist Party strongly condemns such censorship but also sees an opportunity here by encouraging people to watch and spread this video for the purpose of overcoming arbitrary barriers put forth by unintelligent and unaccountable algorithms.