Transhumanist Party

Join the Transhumanist Party (UK)

The annual membership fee is £25.

Members have the ability to shape the future of the Party in the UK by helping suggest and develop effective policies.

Click the following button and use the PayPal interface. Note: you don’t need to have a PayPal account to use this interface.

Buy Now Button

To donate to the Transhumanist Party

Any donations will be gratefully received by the Transhumanist Party.

Buy Now Button

About the Transhumanist Party

(The following information is from http://www.transhumanistparty.org.uk/transhumanist_party_membership_open)

th party logoThe Transhumanist Party is a new political organisation in the UK, part of a network of similar groups around the world, committed to positive social change through technology. Transhumanism is the idea that we must improve ourselves and society using the most effective tools available – to go beyond what we have been, in order to overcome the world’s problems and create a better future.

The Transhumanist Party will work toward that vision by building an organisation which not only pursues innovative policy, but also strives to become an example of new approaches to problem solving and decision making. For example, Party policy is developed by the membership, rather than by the leadership. In other words, membership means actually having the chance to make and vote for policy, and to influence the party’s development. It also means being a part of something historically significant: A new party dedicated to bringing politics into the 21st Century.

You can see a copy of the Transhumanist Party Principles below. Anyone who agrees with them and who is legally eligible to join a UK political party can do so via the button above. If you are not eligible to join this or any UK political party as a full member, you can still join as a non-voting supporter.

We are still in the earliest stages of setting up the party, and in the next few weeks will be deciding whether we yet have enough support to send out 20,000 leaflets about Transhumanist ideas, in support of an independent electoral candidate. If enough people join now that’s exactly what we’ll do, so there is a small slice of history in your hands. You can help make this happen. Join us!

Transhumanist Party Principles

1. Evidence, Science, and Technology

All policy will as far as possible be evidence-based rather than ideology-based. The Party shall support and advocate science and technology, and exists to improve the human and societal condition through the use of technological tools. TP shall strive to create and implement technologies including but not limited to anti-aging, rejuvenation medical technology, a policy of making people “Better Than Well” if they want, artificial and augmented intelligence, and other augmentations of human capabilities.

2. Bright Green

TP shall use all means to work toward the abolition of unnecessary and involuntary suffering across society and throughout nature where appropriate, with particular emphasis on reforming and encouraging responsible practice in economic enterprises such as farming. The Party is deemed to be Bright Green in the sense of advocating the use of high technology to minimise, and where possible reverse, the negative impact of humanity on the life of earth.

3. Personal Freedom, Social Justice

TP advocates liberal social policy whereby all acts between mentally competent consenting adult citizens are legal. Furthermore, any mentally competent adult citizen may do to themselves as they will. These freedoms apply insofar as there is no identifiable victim and no extra-personal law broken. We advocate these freedoms in the context of strong social support for society’s weakest members, and base policy on the principle “Nobody Deserted”. All citizens shall have a right to sustenance, clothing, shelter, energy, healthcare, transport, education, and access to information resources. TP also advocates that all citizens must be able to contribute to society, in their own fashion, without blemish to their dignity or sense of self worth. Where the combination of personal freedoms and a right to guaranteed support would be untenable, then citizens exercising those freedoms may forego social support.

TPUK_LOGO3_400px

Recent Posts

There’s more to democracy than voting

Suppose that the UK held another referendum on the subject of Brexit. Suppose that the numerical result was essentially the same as before: around 52% voting for the UK to leave the EU, and around 48% voting for the UK to remain.

In that case, would that referendum prove to have been a massive waste of time and money?

My answer: not necessarily. Such a vote could actually lead to the healing of the nation, rather than to continued divisiveness and chaos.

politics chaos or healing

It all depends, not on the numerical result, but on the calibre of the arguments raised during that referendum.

If supporters of Leave came forward, during the campaign, with arguments that were less contestable and more compelling than before, this could lead to a healing of the nation. People who voted for the other option in the referendum might still feel disappointed. But they could accept that there were sound arguments in favour of the side that won. And, unlike the case of the first Brexit referendum, they could move forward, reconciled to the outcome. They could tell themselves they had lost a fair battle.

A similar conclusion could apply if, in a variant potential future scenario, it were Remain that won the second referendum, even if just by a narrow margin. Again, there’s no inherent reason why that conclusion would lead to ongoing bitterness. Again, it depends, not on the numerical result, but on the calibre of the arguments raised during the campaigns.

Not just a re-run

Various critics of the idea of a second referendum are doubtful that anything positive could arise from a new round of campaigning. It would just be a re-run of the previous campaign, they say, perhaps with a few people changing their minds. Nothing essentially new could arise. Forget healing. We would just get more chaos.

But I give a much more positive assessment to the idea of a second, better, referendum.

For one reason, people have learned a great deal in the intervening 30 months. Opinions which could be seen as plausible two years ago, have long since been shown up as deeply wrong. As an example, consider the now thoroughly discredited claim that it would be “the easiest deal ever” to negotiate Britain’s exit from the EU (witness “EU trade deal ‘easiest in human history'” and “All the times David Davis said that Brexit was simple”.) On such matters, we’re all wiser now.

But more fundamentally, it’s now widely recognised that it’s in everyone’s interest to cool down the debate, rather than letting matters be inflamed further.

The falsification principle

As a step away from ideology to objectivity, participants in the debate should start by reflecting long and hard about which circumstances would cause them to change their minds. This is in line with the falsification principle of science: people aspiring to scientific methods should set out in advance which experimental findings would cause them to seriously rethink their currently favoured theories.

Therefore, people favouring Remain should describe the circumstances that would cause them to consider switching to Leave instead. In this way, they would identify the potentially strongest arguments in favour of Leave. For example, to my mind, the strongest argument in favour of Leave would be if the structural weakness of the eurozone were shown to be likely to lead to huge financial chaos, of a sort that the UK could best hope to escape by being outside of the EU altogether.

Likewise, people favouring Leave should describe the circumstances that would cause them to consider switching to Remain instead. For example, they might be prepared to alter their vote if they gained confidence in the flexibility and genuineness of EU reform proposals.

Debate participants unable to set out such a “falsifying circumstance” would have to acknowledge they are driven by ideology, rather being open to new findings.

Preparing to build bridges

In parallel, participants in both sides of the debate need to set out proposals for how the UK could unwind from any state of internal hostility after the campaign was concluded.

To this end, supporters of Remain need to acknowledge that many on the Leave side are profoundly ill at ease with what they see as the direction of social development. More than that, Remain supporters need to be ready to commit to a credible programme to address key causes of this alienation, including the bitter perception many people have of being “left behind”.

Similarly, supporters of Leave need to acknowledge that many on the Remain side are profoundly ill at ease with the potential unravelling of processes of multilateral decisions, in a post-Brexit race-to-the bottom world of increasing deregulation.

Towards superdemocracy

That’s the vision – the vision of a better politics being expressed in a better referendum.

It’s a vision that goes beyond democracy-as-counting-votes. It’s a vision of emerging superdemocracy (to use a term that has featured in the last two Transpolitica books – Transcending Politics and Sustainable Superabundance).

Is this vision credible? Or are we doomed to a politics dominated by feelings of vengeance and obliteration?

That is, is a second referendum likely to lead to even greater chaos, or to healing?

Personal leadership

To an extent, the answer will be influenced by the personal qualities of the people leading each side of the debate. Do these people have high personal integrity? Are they open to learning? Are they able to build bridges? Do they have high emotional intelligence? Or are they, instead, obsessive and self-serving?

The answer (chaos or healing) will also depend on how the media conducts itself. Is the media looking for high drama? Will it seek out and amplify the most inflammatory soundbites? Or will it show restraint and care?

To my mind, everyone who cares about the future of the UK has to get behind the processes of healing, rather than the processes of chaos.

That means a commitment to debating honestly – to considering the merits and demerits of different arguments fairly, rather than with a partisan spirit.

This also means a commitment to building bridges – to discovering shared common values, even with people who express views very differently to our own.

It won’t be easy. But the cost of failure would be enormous.

Image source: “Big Ben at Sunset” – Photo by M N on Unsplash

  1. Superdemocracy: issues and opportunities Leave a reply
  2. New complete book awaiting reader reviews Leave a reply
  3. Q4 update: Progress towards “Sustainable superabundance” Leave a reply
  4. Q3 sprint: launch the Abundance Manifesto Leave a reply
  5. Q2 sprint: Political responses to technological unemployment Leave a reply
  6. Tools for better politics? 2 Replies
  7. Chapter updated: “1. Vision and roadmap” Leave a reply
  8. Chapter updated: “4. Work and purpose” Leave a reply
  9. Transpolitica goals and progress, Q1 Leave a reply