Transpolitica holds that human society should embrace, wisely, thoughtfully, and compassionately, the radical transformational potential of technology.

The speed and direction of technological adoption can be strongly influenced by social and psychological factors, by legislation, by subsidies, and by the provision or restriction of public funding. Political action can impact all these factors, either for better or for worse.

Transpolitica wishes to engage with politicians of all parties to increase the likelihood of an attractive, equitable, sustainable, progressive future. The policies we recommend are designed:

  • To elevate the thinking of politicians and other leaders, away from being dominated by the raucous issues of the present, to addressing the larger possibilities of the near future
  • To draw attention to technological opportunities, map out attractive roads ahead, and address the obstacles which are preventing us from fulfilling our cosmic potential.


Transpolitica calls upon politicians of all parties to define and support:

  • Regenerative projects to take full advantage of accelerating technology.

More specifically, we call for:

  • Economic and personal liberation via the longevity dividend
  • An inclusive new social contract in the light of technological disruption
  • A proactionary regulatory system to fast-track innovative breakthroughs
  • Reform of democratic processes with new digital tools
  • Education transformed in readiness for a radically different future
  • A progressive transhumanist rights agenda
  • An affirmative new perspective on existential risks.


1. Regenerative projects to take full advantage of accelerating technology

Anticipating profound change

Accelerating technological progress has the potential to transform lives in the next ten years more profoundly than in any preceding ten year period in history.

Radical technological changes are coming sooner than people think, in technology fields such as nanotechnology, synthetic biology, renewable energy, regenerative medicine, brain sciences, big data analytics, robotics, and artificial intelligence. Together, these technologies will change society in unexpected ways, disrupting familiar patterns of industry, lifestyle, and thinking.

These changes include the potential for exceptional benefits for both the individual and society, as well as the potential for tremendous risk.

Current policymakers rarely tackle the angle of convergent disruptive technologies. This means they react to each new disruption with surprise, after it appears, rather than anticipating it with informed policy and strategy.

Politicians of all parties urgently need to:

  • Think through the consequences of these changes in advance
  • Take part in a wide public discussion and exploration of these forthcoming changes
  • Adjust public policy in order to favour positive outcomes
  • Support bold regenerative projects to take full advantage of accelerating technology – projects with the uplifting vision and scale of the 1960s Apollo moonshot program.

These bold regenerative projects can galvanize huge collaborative endeavours, via providing a new sense of profound purpose and shared destiny.

Benefits from profound change

The outcomes of these regenerative projects can:

  • Enable humans to transcend (overcome) many of the deeply debilitating, oppressive, and hazardous aspects of our lives
  • Allow everyone a much wider range of personal autonomy, choice, experience, and fulfilment
  • Extend the defence of human rights, as described in the “Charter of Transhuman Rights” – including the rights to health, longevity, reproductive freedom, enhanced performance, enhanced intelligence, and bodily self-determination in both life and death
  • Facilitate dramatically improved international relations, social harmony, and a sustainable new cooperation with nature and the environment.

Managing the regenerative projects

These projects can be funded and resourced:

  • By tapping into a well-spring of positive motivation and discretionary effort which these projects will unleash
  • By benefiting from the longevity dividend, in which less budget will be consumed by end-of-life healthcare
  • From smarter forms of international cooperation, which should reduce costs from efforts duplicated between different countries
  • By progressively diverting funding from military budgets to regenerative budgets
  • By eliminating the loopholes which allow multinational companies to shuffle revenues between countries and thereby avoid paying due taxes
  • From savings from applying principles of automation and Information Technology wherever applicable.

The policies in this manifesto are designed to expedite these positive transformations whilst avoiding adverse consequences.

2. Economic and personal liberation via the longevity dividend

Given adequate resources, human longevity could be enormously extended using technologies which are already broadly understood. Prolonging healthy lifespan would clearly benefit the very large number of citizens concerned, and it would also benefit society by preserving and deepening the experience and wisdom available to solve our various social problems.

Transpolitica supports the aspiration of transhumanists to indefinite healthy life extension. Rejuvenation therapies based on regenerative medicine can and should be developed and progressively made available to all citizens. The resulting “longevity dividend” will have large social and economic benefits, as well as personal ones. We do not believe it would impose a dangerous pressure on resources. We call for a bold new moonshot-scale project with the specific goal of ameliorating the degenerative aging process and significantly extending healthy human lifespan.

A practical suggestion is that 20% of the public research funding that currently goes to specific diseases should be reassigned, instead, to researching solutions to aging. In line with the analysis of e.g. SENS, the “ending aging” angle is likely to provide promising lines of research and solutions to many diseases, such as senile dementia (including Alzheimer’s), cancer, heart disease, motor neurone disease, respiratory diseases, and stroke.

3. An inclusive new social contract in the light of technological disruption

Emerging technologies – in particular automation – are likely to impose significant strains on the current economic model. It is far from clear how this will play out, nor what are the best strategies for response. Society and its leaders need to consider and discuss these changes, and draw up plans to deal with different outcome scenarios.

Transpolitica anticipates that accelerating technological unemployment may cause growing social disruption and increased social inequality and alienation. A new social contract is needed, involving appropriate social, educational, and economic support for those who are left with no viable option of ‘earning a living’ due to unprecedented technological change.

A form of “negative income tax” (as proposed by Milton Friedman) or a “basic income guarantee” could provide the basis for this new social contract. Some observers feel it may take an moonshot-scale program to fully design and implement these changes in our social welfare systems. However, political parties around the world have developed promising models, backed up by significant research, for how universal basic income might be implemented in a cost-effective manner. Transpolitica urges action based on the best of these insights.

A practical suggestion is to repeat the 1970s Canadian “Mincome” guaranteed income experiment in several different locations, over longer periods than the initial experiments, and to monitor the outcome. Further references can be found here and here.

4. A proactionary regulatory system to fast-track innovative breakthroughs

The so-called “precautionary principle” preferred by some risk-averse policy makers is often self-defeating: seeking to avoid all risks can itself pose many risks. The precautionary principle frequently hinders intelligent innovation. The“proactionary principle” is a better stance, in which risks are assessed and managed in a balanced way, rather than always avoided. Any bias in favour of the status quo should be challenged, with an eye on better futures that can be created.

Transpolitica observes that many potentially revolutionary therapies are under research, but current drug development has become increasingly slow and expensive (as summarised by “Eroom’s law”). Translational research is doing badly, in part due to current drug regulations which are increasingly out of step with public opinion, actual usage, and technology.

In practical terms, Transpolitica recommends:

  • Streamlining regulatory approval for new medicines, in line with recommendations by e.g. CASMI in the UK
  • Removing any arbitrary legal distinction between “therapies for ill-health” and “therapies for enhancement”.

We also urge revisions in patent and copyright laws to discourage counter-productive hoarding of intellectual property:

  • Reduce the time periods of validity of patents in certain industry areas
  • Make it much less likely that companies can be granted “obvious” patents that give them a throat-choke on subsequent development in an industry area
  • Explore the feasibility of alternative and complementary schemes for facilitating open innovation, such as reputation economies or prize funds.

5. Reform of democratic processes with new digital tools

The underpinnings of a prosperous, democratic, open society include digital rights, trusted, safe identities, robust infrastructure, and the ability to communicate freely without fear of recrimination or persecution. Transpolitica wishes to:

  • Accelerate the development and deployment of tools ensuring personal privacy and improved cyber-security
  • Ensure the protection of critical Internet services even for the cases of wars and other emergencies (these services will include web archival, GitHub, Wikipedia, StackOverflow, trusted root keys, etc); for comparison, this protection is just as vital as the storing the seeds of critical food plants in the Norwegian Doomsday Vault
  • Extend governmental open data initiatives
  • Champion the adoption of “Democracy 2.0” online digital tools to improve knowledge-sharing, fact-checking, and collective decision-making
  • Increase the usefulness and effectiveness of online petitions
  • Restrict the undue influence which finance can have over the electoral and legislative process.

Government policy should be based on evidence rather than ideology:

  • Insights from the emerging field of cognitive biases should be adapted into decision-making processes
  • New committees and organisations should be designed according to debiasing knowledge, so they are less likely to suffer groupthink
  • AI systems should be increasingly used to support smart decision making.

All laws restricting free-speech based on the concept of “personal offence” should be revoked. Anyone accepted into a country, whether as a visitor or as an immigrant, must confirm that they fully accept the principle of free speech, and renounce any use of legal or extralegal means to silence those who offend their religion or worldview.

6. Education transformed in readiness for a radically different future

A greater proportion of time spent in education and training (whether formal or informal) should be future-focused, exploring

  • Which future scenarios are technically feasible, and which are fantasies
  • Which future scenarios are desirable, once their “future shock” has been accepted
  • What actions can be taken to accelerate the desirable outcomes, and avoid the undesirable ones
  • How to achieve an interdisciplinary understanding of future scenarios
  • How resilience can be promoted, rather than society just having a focus on efficiency
  • How creativity can be promoted, rather than society just having a focus on consumption
  • The intelligent management of risk.

Lifelong training and education should become the norm, with people of all ages learning new skills as the need becomes apparent in the new age of automation. Educational curricula need to be able to adapt rapidly.

We would mandate that each university and educational establishment makes an increasing proportion of its material freely accessible online every year.

Education should take greater advantage of MOOCs, and the possibility for people having their knowledge certified without enrolling in a traditional college. MOOCs can be usefully complemented with location based learning labs (“makerspaces”) absorbing some of existing library empty space, preserving the “open knowledge” of libraries and expanding it into “open education and learning”. Transpolitica anticipates a time where, apart from lab work, the whole of tertiary education will be delivered online.

7. A progressive transhumanist rights agenda

Transpolitica champions the concept of morphological freedom:

  • The rights of all people, including sexual and gender minorities, to bodily self-determination
  • Free access to modern reproductive technologies, including genetic screening to improve the quality of life, for all prospective parents
  • Making it easier for people, if they so choose, to enter a state of cryonic suspension as their bodies come close to clinical death.

Transpolitica also wishes to:

  • Explore the gradual applicability of selected human rights to sentient beings, such as primates, that demonstrate relevant mental life, and also advanced AIs, that need such rights to function in their respective purpose
  • Hasten the adoption of synthetic (in-vitro) meat, and the abolition of cruelty to farm animals.

Transpolitica envisions support for a radical future for consciousness:

  • Enhanced mental cooperation as minds become more interconnected via brain-to-computer interfaces and other foreseeable brain/mind technologies, which will enable the ability to share qualia at rapid speeds.

8. An affirmative new perspective on existential risks

Some emerging technologies – in particular artificial general intelligence and nanotechnology – are so powerful as to produce changes more dramatic than anything since the agricultural revolution. The outcomes could be extraordinarily positive for humanity, or they could threaten our very existence.

Existing technologies already pose potential catastrophic risks to the well-being of humanity:

  • The risk persists of accidental nuclear warfare
  • Runaway climate change might be triggered by unchecked emissions of greenhouse gases that push global temperatures beyond sudden tipping points.

There are further complications from relatively easy access by alienated, destructive individuals to weapons of mass destruction, including dirty bombs and synthetic pathogens.

Without being complacent, Transpolitica believes that sustained human innovation can mitigate all these risks, once they are fully understood. We call for significant resources to be applied to working out how to ensure that the outcomes are positive.

The wise management of the full set of existential risks is likely to involve innovations in technology (e.g. the development and production of cleaner energy sources), economics (e.g. a carbon tax to redress the market failure of unpenalized negative externalities), and politics (e.g. the collaborative creation and enforcement of binding treaties). The end outcome will be the successful harnessing of technologies, both old and new, for the radical enhancement of humanity.

Recent Posts

Transpolitica 2016 – The questions asked

This page provides a public record of all the questions or comments submitted electronically via the Glisser tool in response to the presentations at Transpolitica 2016.

The number before each question indicates the number of upvotes received by the question.

David Wood, Executive Director, Transpolitica: “What prospects for better politics?”

  • 2: I fear that these suggested solutions might have the opposite effect to the desired and further decrease the need for critical evaluation of information. The solution should be to change the education from fact based to thinking based.
  • 1: The problem with typing text questions is you have to stop focusing on the speaker😦
  • 0: Following on from this, a rating system for the publications/individuals which would potentially affect their funding, ad’s less likely to be hosted with them.
  • 0: How will these developments affect the job market? Have any studies been on this subject?

Alex Flamant, Notion Capital: “Accelerating the regulatory approval of autonomous vehicles”

  • 3: Have you seen the MIT Moral Machine site on the ethics of autonomous driving technology? Will the public be able to accept the reality of decisions being taken like this?
  • 2: What do you think about self owning cars? (Bitcoin + uber + self driving)
  • 2: In which countries will AV be approved first?
  • 1: To mitigate against public fears how are the companies developing these technologies going to disclose the moral decision making process? When they are currently being secretive and competitive.
  • 1: But most people love driving!
  • 1: What happened in the Tesla crash that resulted in a death?
  • 0: Will cars in their present form be able to be updated to autonomous?
  • 0: Would this not make cars an expense for the rich and turn shared cars into personal busses?
  • 0: What is EU commission doing?
  • 0: From a car-hater: will cities put a total limit to number of cars?
  • 0: Would giving an AV permission to kill humans not potentially open the floodgates re Asimov’s first law of robotics?
  • 0: If economies of scale will network effect and therefore concentration of power, then what does that mean for our politics!
  • 0: On level 4 (full automation) the car would have to make a decision in the potential accident, how do you install ethics into a car when accident is inevitable? Would we need to install something similar to human reasoning? And if so, could it be global or only country specific?
  • 0: Is the huge economic impact not a problem – it seems many jobs from cab drivers to mechanics going out of business, especially if big companies do as you say and share say 200,000 vehicles that they maintain themselves?
  • 0: How should we cope with inevitable loss of job categories (taxi driver, lorry driver, bus driver,…)?

Anna Harrington Morozova, Scientific and Regulatory Director, REGEM Consulting: “Opportunities for changes in governance of biomedical innovations: choosing your battles”

  • 8: What would you say to opening up academic publishing sites to close the public-expert gap
  • 8: Surely a major source of conflict in this area is the vast evidence of amoral behaviour from large corporations?
  • 5: GMO crop companies like Monsanto monopolise seeds and make their seeds stetile to prevent reuse and force farmers to repurchase seeds each year, at premiums. GMO has a lot to offer, but do experts not see the problem it has already caused in the US?
  • 3: Interesting! Isn’t it important to define the main goals of our scientific “battles”. For me, number one is life extension, number two existential risks and number three: happiness. And for you?
  • 3: Are the FDA and other regulators sufficiently up-to-date with innovative new medical tech like personalised medicine?
  • 2: Withdrawing NHS funding for Alzheimer’s disease wasn’t very NICE of them.
  • 1: Pity the public is so badly educated!
  • 1: Experts fail in explaining the uncertainty in their conclusions: do you agree?
  • 1: Did you say you had a magnet? What is that?

Didier Coeurnelle, Co-president of Heales, “Making longevity politically mainstream, or die trying”

  • 6: Why don’t you put more focus on the economic arguments? National healthcare budgets are in crisis worldwide
  • 5: The older generation often struggles to adapt and understand the younger generation, they tend to be more conservative. Wouldn’t longevity stall the innovation?
  • 5: Would we still spend 50% of health care in last 6 months of life when aged 200?
  • 4: Are Aubrey de Grey and Ray Kurzweil aware of Heales and what are points of disagreement, if any, with their views?
  • 4: In the UK over the past few decades, improvements in healthcare have disproportionately extended the life expectancy of the most well-off in society. The life expectancy of the poorest has increased less than the richest. What market or political mechanisms would mean that the poorest benefited first?
  • 3: Would a longer lifespan result in a less efficient lifespan? In other words, what can you accomplish after the age of 80?
  • 3: Why is there a need to extend the lifespan or potentially get closer to immortality? What do you see people filling their spare time with?
  • 2: Given recent political trends in Europe in America, is it better for futurists to engage with the public and politics from the left or from the right?
  • 1: You didn’t mention grass roots activism for life extension?
  • 1: As longevity treatment is still in development, shouldn’t the public prioritise less work and improved access to healthier food, to better improve current life quality?
  • 0: Is our ability to support so many more people progressing at same pace as medical progress?

Alex Pearlman, Science Journalist, Kings College London: “The political future of genetic enhancements”

  • 3: Is ‘genetically better’ always the same as ‘better human’? Evolution is no respecter of species. Perhaps genetically better tends towards species differentiation. Do we have even the beginning of a politics that can address this?
  • 3: Would this not lead to less innovation as people will naturally seek to make their lives easier, and so flow towards these genetic changes. This would remove important perspectives born from experiences of hardship and challenge, and they are a central factor behind innovation.
  • 2: Compared to nuclear/atomic technology would you see human gene tech as deserving of a lesser/same/greater level of regulatory oversight and national/intergovernmental agreement and treaties?
  • 2: Is there a debate in China?
  • 1: Given the impending life extension tech and even the singularity, are genetic engineering technologies really all that significant?
  • 1: Why do you think transhumanism is white/male dominated and how should this be addressed?
  • 0: Why opinion of politicians is so important? If we simply do not want them to be the decision makers in subjects they are not any better experts than any other uneducated member of public, we need seemply push them away handing over the decision making to more capable and educated panel. Give politicians less attention and contribute to rise of expert community input.

José Cordeiro, Founding Energy Advisor/Faculty, Singularity University: “Practical and legal steps towards European cryonics”

  • 6: At present cryonics is nothing but a new belief system about afterlife. And businesses charging believers money to perform the ritual in line with that mythology. Please address how are you different from the older religions
  • 5: If we cure death, how do we decide which of 10 billion people get to live forever?
  • 5: Who pays the ongoing costs to keep clients cryogenically frozen? What if the business runs out of funds?
  • 4: Were the worms frozen alive? Is there a difference between the likelihood of being able to bring someone back if they have already died as opposed to being frozen when alive?
  • 3: Cryonics is essentially freezing a dead body. Reigniting the neurons in a brain may never be possible.
  • 2: When will the technology reach the point to successfully reanimate a cryopreserved human body?
  • 2: Any rejuvenation treatment available today?
  • 2: Why just worms and not mice?
  • 1: If King of Spain is cryogenically preserved, who will be king when he is reanimated?
  • 1: Scientists have for years been freezing worms, simply by putting them in -20 degrees freezer. We have some in the lab and they come back to life in 30 mins. I feel that a lot of facts on that topic are presented subjectively.
  • 1: What are you planning to do with your immortality?

Panel discussion featuring: Timothy Barnes, Founder and Senior Deity, The Rain Gods; Kathryn Corrick, COO; Dan Brown, CEO of Meganexus Ltd

  • 11: Do recent events (eg Brexit) show that voters are generally poorly informed and not well-placed to decide on complex issues?
  • 7: How do you ensure the Represent tool does not just become a lobbying tool for particular factions?… ie loaded language add.
  • 6: Digital disruption isn’t ambitious enough. We need to modernised the hundreds of years old ways of policy and law making. Discuss!?
  • 6: Rather than new tech replacing existing ways of working, should we not be asking how the rile of government changes in a the age of networked populations?
  • 5: The key issue is how do governments add value to society?
  • 4: Can you comment on the fact that last few years phone numbers and email addresses disappeared from local councel websites. They may be digitilised but became much less accesable or accoubtable. What is the point exactly? Increased convenience for government to hide from public?
  • 1: Rents are cheaper in Berlin! And it will stay in EU
  • 1: Why so much focus on helping offenders when so many non-offenders cannot find jobs?
  • 1: Because the cost of offenders and reoffending is more to government.
  • 1: Does get any feedback from the government and do you have any examples when collected data influenced government decisions?
  • 0: How much AI is behind
  • 0: No! Communication isn’t the problem. The problem is transparency into who says what and why … #trust … There really isn’t a paucity of low barrier comms
  • 0: Could you address the matters of increased transparency with intriduction of digitalisation and the demand for higher level of trust to officials it brings. Would we need different type of governers as a result, these we can trust more.
  • 0: How will represent those outside the online community?
  • 0: Is this really different from 38Degrees or the Govt’s

James Smith, Party Leader, Something New: “Building the world’s first open-source political manifesto”

  • 5: In my understanding OpenSource, in Linux unresolved questions can cascade up and up, until eventually the founder (Linus?) has to give a decision on most intractable. Is that the case here, adn therefore are early adopters / most frequent users most powerful?
  • 3: “massively distributed deliberation” for democracy as labour puts it is a fine ambition. Massive surveillance. Massive data. Massive deliberation. … Needs massive transparency to counter maybe misbehaviour. Discuss!?
  • 3: Couldn’t this same strategy of using github as an interface for seeing diffs over manifesto changes be applied to existing parties? Why is a new party required?
  • 2: Normally open source projects only have a handful of contributors who care enough about the code to get involved in the discussion process. Surely this would break down when you have millions of people who want to have a say?
  • 2: Is it really not a problem for James if he has no info on those Open Source contributors? Am thinking of people adding anonymously info to Wikipedia which benefits themselves and which isn’t based in fact (eg some UK MPs been caught at this!)
  • 1: Why don’t you allow blocked posts into the discussion? Isn’t the whole point of democracy that somebody always will disagree?! How do you ensure objectivity if you only built on what majority agrees on?
  • 1: Could other parties use your tools and systems for their own policy decisions?
  • 1: Why limit at the British level, why not at the world level this new democracy?
  • 1: Who edits the content? How do you control the quality of the material? How about if you don’t agree?
  • 0: Open democracy and “being back hanging” ?
  • 0: Is your ‘exit strategy’ to sell your platform to main parties?
  • 0: Have there been any forks?

Jason Blackstock, Head of Department, UCL STEaPP, “Practical steps towards better public decision-making”

  • 6: How do we solve the problem that large corporates like Facebook are run by small ‘boards’, primarily for profit, which is maximised by creating the echo chambers?
  • 4: Would you applaud the local trials of UBI (e.g in Dutch citites and Finland) as good examples of the experimental approach to politics that you advocate?
  • 1: Challenges faced by policymakers? Or challenges faced by citizens? There is a fundamental difference. Outside in view vs inside out view.
  • 0: I got a remote house with custom built satitation. As we built it I learnt all about sewage functioning and deal with its maintainance. If anything I feel empowered by that knowledge. And this makes me happier. Your statement that bad toilets, or a need to manage it, can make people unhappy got no factual grounds.

Alexander Karran, Senior Researcher, Transpolitica: “Surveillance capitalism: making big data work for all”

  • 5: Instead of storing data on the block chain, why not just encrypt it so it is only visible to those it was intended for, not the platform
  • 3: Our personal data must remain ours. Irrevocably. All “T+C” null and void. By a new Digital Bill of Rights Law. … Then all corporate use is only by temporary loan with power always with the human owner. …
  • 2: Don’t we swap our data for free Facebook?
  • 1: How does your solution deal with the self mirror issue? £10 for my data is not worth my son losing his opportunity to develop?
  • 1: Do we need to start with children’s education and ensuring digital rights are as familiar to young people as their human rights?
  • 0: Block chain is not the panacea. It’s only good for venture capital….

Tony Czarnecki, Managing Partner, Sustensis: “From long-term sustainable growth to the economy of abundance”

  • 7: Why do you say that knowledge doubles each year? Maybe, it is the quantity of data, but I do not think we do double our real knowledge each year (no new quantum theory each year for example).
  • 5: Is your roadmap to shared values and democracy based on “western” assumptions? Does it cope with cultural differences?
  • 3: What is your opinion on redistributing retirement throughout one’s life instead of receiving it in bulk at the end?
  • 2: How will these proposals ever come to pass? I agree that many of these things are needed but are they politically feasible. In what sense of ‘real world’ is this real world?
  • 0: If I understand correctly it is a democratic view restricted to a part of the population with some people having more rights than others (more weight). Do I understand correctly?

Dean Bubley, Founder, Disruptive Analysis: “Technological Unemployment? We can work through it”

  • 2: If 95% of someone’s job can be automated, won’t this mean that many fewer employees are needed?
  • 2: Can you comment on models like Uber which can disrupt existing sectors very quickly – benefitting consumers but at the expense of workers?
  • 1: Don’t the short term employment gaps only exacerbate the unemployment issue in the medium term when automation replaces those jobs (e.g. we train more lorry drivers, only to have to lay larger numbers of them off from 2018)?
  • 1: “Things don’t change overnight” but most people adapt at a _much_ lower pace, if ever. Therefore things do change “overnight”, Don’t they?
  • 1: What’s your opinion about impact different political and economic ideologies could have on how tech unemployment progresses?
  • 0: Paul Mason points to 6 guys with rags doing carwashes where once we had machines. If wages are low, why invest in automation?
  • 0: Is the issue not less about the lack of work and the impact of automation on inequality and on the environmental impact of the level of consumption required to sustain wage growth in an automated world?

Chris Monteiro, Principal contributor, H+Pedia: “Perceptions and projections of futurist political scenarios”

  • 3: Does State Fascism have to be necessarily dystopian? Are we not limiting ourselves categorising like that?
  • 2: What all those sci-fi scenarios get very wrong (hopefully) is that they still show _old_ people in the future. Did we abandon all rejuvenation pursuits?
  • 2: Might VR (Virtual Reality) not give people the chance to choose their own utopia where they can spend at least part of their time?

Final review questions (but there was no time to hold this session)

  • 1: Don’t like term Transhuman!
  • 1: Education is fundamental to the way society’s work. Pity not explicitly covered in otherwise excellent meeting today
  • 0: With 2008 crash most folk are pissed off with the politial establishment. That’s why we have Brexit, Corbyn and Trump. Governments must take on current form of capitalism
  1. Transpolitica 2016 – The best questions Leave a reply
  2. Transpolitica 2016 – Previews Leave a reply
  3. Project for a Progressive Ethics 6 Replies
  4. Transpolitica 2016 – Schedule Leave a reply
  5. Transpolitica 2016 – call for submissions Leave a reply
  6. Flawed humanity, flawed politics Leave a reply
  7. Anticipating better democracy Leave a reply
  8. Artificial Intelligence in the UK: Risks and Rewards 1 Reply
  9. RSA Basic Income: What’s in it for People with Disabilities? Leave a reply