Transhumanist Sects Tuesday, Dec 19 2006
transhumanism 1:24 pm
Transhumanism, like any large movement, consists of multiple currents. Many individuals identify themselves with more than one. A short overview of a few, written a couple years ago by Nick Bostrom, can be found here. In this post, I will present my own classification scheme, and include descriptions and names that Dr. Bostrom didn’t include in the Transhumanist FAQ. They will be listed in rough order of their popularity, but please don’t take the ordering scheme too seriously - it’s roughly based on the number of Google search results for each term.
Transhumanism is unique because it is so diverse. That’s why it never makes sense to label us as a religion or unified conspiracy - besides being mostly unreligious, transhumanists can barely agree on something long enough to cooperate towards it. That’s why the #1 version of transhumanism is…
1) Salon transhumanism. This is the huge group that dabbles on the fringes of transhumanism, making small donations to a few organizations here, commenting on blogs or mailing lists there, and exploring issues for the first time that other transhumanists are already tired of. The most impressive aspect of this noncommittal category of transhumanism is its sheer size - it includes folks like Bill Gates, congressman Brad Sherman, and the literally millions of people who have read Kurzweil, Garreau, Brin, Egan, et al. Many of those in this category may not explicitly call themselves transhumanists, but sure act like it, openly advocating extended lifespans, intelligence enhancement, and space colonization, their primary familiarity being through fiction however. A huge task for other transhumanists is to get salon transhumanists more closely invovled.
2) Immortalists. One of the most powerful strands in transhumanism, in recent years especially, but dating all the way back to Robert Ettinger or before, are the immortalists. Immortalists are focused on living forever. In some abstract sense, they’re not fundamentally different than all those billions of people who want to live forever by going to Heaven, but have an actual plan to do it here on Earth. Immortalists are doing really well financially - the Methuselah Mouse Prize bank account just passed $4 million, which, in the immortal words of Aubrey de Grey, is “quite a lot, really”. The Immortality Institute, which I co-founded back in 2002, is one of the most active transhumanist forums on the internet, and if you type “immortality” into Google, it’s right after the Wikipedia page. The immortalists have it all - bloggers, television appearances, a large community of devoted donors, and a productive nucleus of aging researchers who are engaged in innovative research to beat the crap out of aging. When many people hear the word “transhumanist”, they think of immortalists. Which makes sense, because practically all transhumanists are immortalists. The #1 immortalist blog on the interwebs is Fight Aging.
3) The World Transhumanist Association. Ah, the WTA. Even though he is no longer Executive Director, many associate the WTA with the transhumanly-active Dr. James Hughes, who built it up from nothing since it was founded by Nick Bostrom and David Pearce in 1998. The WTA has almost 4,000 members worldwide, with dozens of chapters located in places like Toronto, Seattle, London, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, DC/Boston, Israel, Moscow, Buenos Aires, Helsinki, etc. You might call it a worldwide transhumanist conspiracy. The WTA has no official headquarters, though by looking at the global map, we can see that there is a much-higher-than-usual density of WTA transhumanists in California and New England. As far as I can tell, there are no transhumanists in Wyoming. The WTA is not a sect of transhumanists so much as it is an umbrella organization for all transhumanists. There are many transhumanists, however, that are much more active in their sects than in the WTA as a whole. Here is a survey of members from 2005.
4) Extropians. The extropians have been around a long time, since the late 80s, when T.O. Morrow coined the term “extropy”, meaning “the extent of a system’s intelligence, information, order, vitality, and capacity for improvement”. The extropians have seven principles: Perpetual Progress, Self-Transformation, Practical Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Open Society, Self-Direction, and Rational Thinking. There used to be six: Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, and Spontaneous Order, which could be summed up in the spiffy acronym, “BEST DO IT SO!” Extropianism reached its zenith in the mid-90s with the WIRED article, “Meet the Extropians”, but still maintains an active mailing list to this day. The Extropy Institute, the primary organizational instantiation of the extropians, shut down earlier this year, but there are plans to turn the site into a “library of transhumanism and the future”. Extropians have a reputation for being libertarian in their politics, though there are extropians of all political stripes. Classic extropians are people like Max More, Natasha Vita-More, and Robert Bradbury, all of whom have contributed much to the transhumanist dialogue over the last decade or longer.
5) Singularitarianism. What the hell? My own favorite flavor of transhumanism is all the way down here, at #5. The first thing I have to say about singularitarianism is that all of its syllables are entirely necessary, and if it’s really so hard for you to pronounce or spell, you should consider revisiting English 101. (If you’ve never heard the world aloud before, this song might help you remember.) Singularitarianism was first conceived in 1996, by child prodigy Eliezer Yudkowsky, who was 16 at the time. Singularitarianism centers around the idea of superintelligence, and its incredible potential. The idea is that, if, either through human intelligence enhancement or artificial intelligence, we were to create a mind significantly smarter than all human geniuses, it could eventually reach a point where it could continue to improve its own intelligence unaided, leading to a feedback loop of cognitive enhancement. This could quickly lead to something way, way more powerful and smarter than the human race, which, if it cared about us, could do us a lot of good. Conversely, if a superintelligence didn’t explicitly care for us, its natural activity could lead to our destruction. The proposed solution to this problem is Friendly AI - a seed that cares about us, and only makes modifications to itself in such a way that this quality is preserved indefinitely. Singularitarianism is possibly the most controversial branch of transhumanism, and is represented by the Singularity Institute.
6) Democratic transhumanists. This left-leaning, democracy-boosting segment of transhumanism has been popularized in Dr. James Hughes’ recent book, Citizen Cyborg, and his online essay, Democratic Transhumanism 2.0. Democratic transhumanism puts a lot of effort towards placing transhumanism within the wider political context of today: in addition to the economic and social dimensions of political orientation, James points to another: biopolitics, where the gamut ranges from Luddite (anti-enhancement) to transhumanist (pro-enhancement). The interesting insight here is that this dimension is entirely orthogonal to the others - where someone is on the traditional 2D political compass is not indicative of where they fall on the biopolitical continuum. The quintessential blog of democratic transhumanists is Cyborg Democracy.
7) Academic transhumanism. Transhumanism - at school! Academics like Nick Bostrom and Robin Hanson are brilliant and well-regarded enough to write about transhumanism without getting quickly ejected from their respective universities. They are academic transhumanists, who write about academic transhumanist things. This branch of transhumanism is powerful, because 1) it tends to be more precise and well-researched than the vast majority of transhumanist discourse, 2) the tone allows it to be easily integrated with other academic topics, such as economics, heuristics and biases, cognitive science, ethics, and the like, 3) students have a greater tendency to respect it, 4) other academics might take it seriously, 5) it has the potential to discover new and powerful ideas that lie at the end of long and deep roads of thought. In Bostrom’s Transhumanist FAQ, this current is known as “theoretical transhumanism”, though I think “academic transhumanism” is more self-explanatory.
Transhumanist arts and culture. Natasha Vita-More formally kicked off this segment of transhumanism in 1982 with her Transhumanist Arts Statement. There is a website devoted to TA&C, and dozens of transhumanist-oriented artists including Stelarc, Anders Sandberg, Gina Miller, and many more. There are a few transhumanist bands. The ones I am aware of are: Eidölon, Cyanotic, and Yluko. They are all metal/industrial. Mr. Bungle also has a couple songs about nanotechnology and transhumanism. You should check them out if you enjoy chaotic noise.
9) Non-transhumanist transhumanists. There is a segment of transhumanists, of unknown size, that feels uncomfortable with the connotations of the transhumanist label, or consider it divisive, but still hold many of the beliefs and values of transhumanists. Examples would be our friends Jamais Cascio and Dale Carrico. These individuals participate in the transhumanist/futurist mileu but just don’t like to use the T-word to describe themselves. Less provocative labels, such as “technoprogressive”, tend to be preferred.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
I’d add — perhaps as a 9th group, perhaps as a footnote — the small collection of “Non-transhumanist transhumanists,” the folks who openly espouse transhumanist values, but equally openly choose *not* to call themselves “transhumanist.” In this category would go Dale Carrico and, really, me. I find the term “transhumanist” to suffer from both bad marketing and bad associations, and believe that the ideals do better when not linked to the term. Let me explain.
The term transhumanism implies a “better-than-human” status, and this concept is openly supported by some of transhumanism’s proponents. I don’t simply mean “enhanced over human norms” or even “more capable than a standard human,” but *better* — more ethical, more perfect, superior in non-quantitative ways. Whether or not this is objectively the case is irrelevant: humankind’s history includes far too many examples of one group claiming superior status over another for most people to see this as an acceptable argument. For the majority (hopefully) of transhumanists who would reject the claim that enchanced physically and mentally is de facto enhanced ethically and morally, this means not just having to explain their positions to newcomers, but overcoming a resistance to the concept.
A parallel marketing problem is the implication in that transhumanists would no longer be human. This, I think, arises from a natural tendency among the scientifically and technologically literate to want to use precise definitions of terms. I suspect that most transhumanists would say “human” means “Homo sapiens,” and that *person* means the broader community of sapient species. Thing is, that’s not the only connotation of the word “human,” as should be clear when thinking about words like “humane,” “humanitarian” and “humanism.” For many people not exposed to transhumanist thought, “human” means more than Homo sapiens, it implies being a part of a grouping that includes every other person, and treats all co-humans equally. Not in every use, of course, and often not consciously — but this is the underlying connotation of “human,” and why discussions of being no longer human strike many people as troubling.
The bad associations reason I’ll deal with more succinctly. There’s sufficient overlap between self-described transhumanists and people embracing a peculiarly 90s brand of net.libertarianism — a creed that can be summed up as “I got mine, Jack, so fuck off” — that for many people who follow the ideas but don’t espouse the meme (your “salon transhumanists,” generally), the term is linked to a community they don’t want to be part of. A parallel here would be if we had a broad and generally beneficial movement that called itself “minutemen,” advocating community responses to national security — that movement would be undermined by the rise of the sub-group of amateur border guards using the same name, arguing many of the same things, but also espousing ideals that turn a *lot* of people off.
Basically, I think that the term “transhumanist” simply has too many unfortunate implications for people just learning about the concepts for it to be a useful badge to wear. I don’t disagree about the underlying concepts, just the label.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
On “transhumanist arts and culture”, there is no case I know of where a confusing, technical, counter-to-common-sense idea was popularized through music, art, and whatnot. Things like that seem to get treated primarily as jokes, perhaps because the exact same thing was done by naive elementary school teachers who wanted to make math sound “cool”.
December 19th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
If you’re looking for more on #7, Academic Transhumanism, they just started up a wonderful new collective blog titled Overcoming Bias, which is about all those funny quirks of our evolved intelligence that lead us to make bad judgements, bad decisions, and mistakes.
If you’re puzzling about the image at the top (as I did), I believe it is Jason and the Argonauts, and the angel-like things are the Sirens, luring them to destructions on the rocks. So *that* bias is the “being led astray by sexiness” bias… fortunatly most are not so deadly
December 20th, 2006 at 12:04 am
Thanks for this analysis. It does clarify things.
However, #1 is in error. By analogy to other uses of the word ’sect,’ one does not divide people into sects by their level of commitment.
Casual members of the (hypothetical) Reformed Southern Neo-Arnamite Church are NOT defined as a separate sect from fully committed members of RSNAC.
Indeed, level of commitment is an orthogonal dimension, and most members of any sect are neither casual bystanders, nor top activists, but rather supportive observers.
December 20th, 2006 at 1:54 am
Well I do call myself a transhumanist, but agree with Jamais’ points. I prefer to stay with the term “human” and think that even as an immortal jupiterbrain I will still be a human, with some enhancements.
I am perhaps more optimist than Jamais - a few years ago I used to say that we should drop the T word for its negative connotations, but now I see that it is becoming (slowly) more accepted, so probably there is no point in rebranding.
I think in the long run the really important group will be “salon transhumanists”. At least, more future-friendly laws and policies will require large numbers of salon transhumanists to vote for the right candidates. Even if they do not get more closely invovled, they can make a huge difefrence just talking to each other and spreading the meme at cocktail parties or macdonalds.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Jamais, the word is getting more accepted, and with the right explanations, we should be proud to call ourselves transhumanists. Both you and Dale seem to have histories working with or around people with explicitly anti-transhumanist sentiments, so calling yourselves transhumanists would be quite counter-productive. “Transhuman” doesn’t mean “better morally”, and the vast majority of transhumanists understand this. I agree with the libertarian connotation, but see the rise of the WTA as having wiped that out for the most part. The most prominent transhumanists are not libertarians, incidentally.
Tom, maybe so, but we transhumanists like it, so who cares?
Josh, people know what I mean. I’m using the word “sect” loosely here.
Eric, at least check my links before you recommend a blog to me.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:27 am
“Transhuman” doesn’t mean “better morally”, and the vast majority of transhumanists understand this.
Unfortunately, Michael, that’s not as important as whether people outside the movement understand this. That’s why I referred to it as a “marketing” problem — the issue isn’t the consistency of the terminology within the movement, but the connotations of the term to those who are outside the movement but potentially allies.
It may well be, as you and Giulio assert, that the term “transhumanism” is becoming more widely accepted, and losing the negative implications. If so, terrific; in the meantime, I’ll remain a “non-transhumanist transhumanist,” friendly to and supportive of the ideals of the movement, if not quite yet willing to adopt the label.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:49 am
A rose by any other name, etc. You’re not really “non-transhumanist” if you agree with all the ideas.
But I see what you mean, I’ll add this category at the bottom in a bit. Thanks for weighing in on the discussion.
December 20th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
“and most members of any sect are neither casual bystanders, nor top activists, but rather supportive observers.”
I’d be willing to bet a hundred dollars cash that there are five or ten times more casual bystanders in transhumanism than supportive observers.
“Tom, maybe so, but we transhumanists like it, so who cares?”
We should care if it makes us sound like naive elementary school teachers. Do we really want to sound like the people at, say, http://www.therightbrothers.com/?
“You’re not really “non-transhumanist” if you agree with all the ideas.”
I think he means that he agrees with the movement but won’t call himself a transhumanist publically.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
The term “transhumanist” is still young enough such that it really isn’t entrenched in the minds of The Masses as meaning one particular thing.
The meaning of the term “transhumanist” is also, of course, being shaped by the people who choose to adopt the label for themselves…and note that adopting a label doesn’t mean defining yourself entirely by that label, or subscribing to any kind of dogma. It’s just a word that’s there for people who find it has some use for it. I find it helps me locate and identify potentially-interesting people to discuss what I consider to be important ideas with.
I’m perfectly comfortable with “transhumanist”, though I guess according to your categories above, I’d probably fit most closely into “immortalist”. After all, cool enhancements won’t do you any good if you’re dead.
December 20th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Truth!
Yes. By generating awesome, and then labeling ourselves transhumanists, we can rub off some awesome onto said label.
…which is exactly why I’m so concerned about existential risk!
December 20th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
[…] 2 - Transhumanist Sects “Transhumanism is unique because it is so diverse. That’s why it never makes sense to label us as a religion or unified conspiracy - besides being mostly unreligious, transhumanists can barely agree on something long enough to cooperate towards it.” (tags: immortalists singularity extropianism transhumanism subgenres sects) […]
December 21st, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Your forgot the Future Hi people.
Also, a great example of transhumanist art, although I don’t think she would call it transhumanist, is Bjork’s All is Full of Love video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQH4AdOg2MU
I’m increasingly not calling myself a transhumanist, because as these technologies proliferate, the need for such divisive and loaded language will become obsolete.
December 22nd, 2006 at 7:44 am
Future Hi is shut down.
Bjork is great, I like her music very much.
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:25 am
Hi Michael,
I find that part of that task is not to presume “objective risk”, and if you do, you should be able to defend it. Also part of the task is to be able to explain, and not just elude, how risk level – after correcting for strawman classical risk errors – covaries with each person’s average of current bricolage:engineering rate and perceived ideal state bricolage:engineering rate, where bricolage roughly means blackbox-suspicious and engineering roughly means blackbox-nonsuspicious. I believe it’s a better position from where an audience has been overtly treated as if they’re not impressionable, or at the very least never, ever, told, “Trust my outputs. Because I’m smarter than you. QED”
This won’t apply to much of your overall work, just probably to that particular task, for however long it seems important.
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:58 am
Nate, can you please state your point more clearly? For example, the term, “objective risk” in your first sentence can mean one of two things - risk to an objective, or objectively existing risk.
I know you’re trying to put things intelligently here, but can you please just speak in simple English?
This has frequently been a problem w/ you in the past on various message boards and forums…
So what you’re saying is that if you talk down to the audience, they won’t like you. However, this isn’t always true.
For true rationalists, this argument should have the capacity to work! For example, I trust what Robin Hanson says more than what I think up randomly, because it’s more likely, on issues to which we have equal access to information, that his opinion better reflects reality than mine.
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:51 am
Sorry for the clarity problem, Michael. But I honestly don’t understand what you mean by simple English. Besides, that’s not a very fair command: How often do I say the same thing to others when I’m expected to know that Google’s my friend and whatnot, or to infer with a little charity?
Now I took for granted that ‘abstract tool’ is a simple concept that you understand and that arithmetic and surveying are simple processes for you too, seriously.
I know but that’s no fun! For true full transparency, which is a value I believe we both share, we’re going to have to become one, or figure out a way to co-exist as singletons without knowing of each other’s existence. These may be ideals which require eternal approaching or striving, but even when we’re trying to be practical (or else “trying to be” at 0%-risk decision making, which I believe is impossible, given my assumptions that a 0% death rate, necessarily with a full-population retirement community, is unacceptable, and that social science is inherently flawed[1]), I don’t see how it’s a good idea to hold as fundamentally righteous or virtuous behavior/artifact units that represent their (the ideals) outright denials.
[1] To qualify that, please see this post, http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=16&t=13420&st=20&#entry141633, the last post in the thread.
December 22nd, 2006 at 11:31 am
What do you mean by “objective risk” here? What does it have to do with getting salon transhumanists more closely involved? Do you mean existential risk, social risk, or some other type of risk?
The task I was talking about is just getting other transhumanists more involved, which needn’t necessarily have anything to do with communicating risk. What does the sentence above have to do with getting transhumanists more involved in transhumanism? The topic here was transhumanism as a movement, and my remark that core transhumanists spend significant time trying to get peripheral transhumanists more involved.
By risk level, do you mean risk of the world going boom, or something else entirely?
I understand this point, but what does it have to do with getting people more involved with transhumanism? Are you saying that, in general, a good strategy to follow when attempting to bring people over to your point of view is not to give them the impression that you think they’re impressionable?
They are… but what is the surveying you are talking about?
To me, transparency means transparency in the Brin sense - cameras everywhere that everyone has access to. What type of transparency are you alluding to here? And what does it have to do with telling an audience you’re smarter than them? A speaker can speak down to his audience, and still advocate transparency. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Why does transparency mean that everyone needs to become one, or co-exist without knowing about each other? Can’t we be transparent, and co-exist, and still say things like, “Trust my outputs. Because I’m smarter than you. QED”? I think it’s possible.
I disagree with this, but it’s an entirely separate issue…
December 22nd, 2006 at 12:54 pm
I just don’t believe there is true full transparency when their must exist blackboxes of the “Trust my outputs. Because I’m smarter than you. QED” sort. QED
Basically, I’m proposing that it should be helpful, in some cases of getting salon transhumanists more involved, when it’s communicated how their abstract ideals are preservable through this critical period without ever dictating their EEA modules.
I’m not ridiculing or anything. You already do a great job. That is just something to consider as an alternative for some cases. That is, if you even see the problem. If you don’t, so be it, my friend. I’ll just have to get better at peaceful persuasion or just go about my business of moping and despair – my problem.
Objective risk means the objective criteria that objectively determine the definition of 0%-risk decision making. What you disagree with and say is an entirely separate issue is actually one of these criteria.
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:10 pm
So the transparency you are talking about is the ability to get full information-flow readouts of one another’s brain?
Can you give me a concrete example? What if their abstract ideals can’t be preserved? Then maybe they really oughtn’t to be transhumanists, for example. There is a such thing as people that will be against transhumanism no matter what, though I guess if someone is involved in salon discussion they usually aren’t hostile towards the topic they are speaking about.
But I kinda see what you mean, are you alluding to Friendly AI by saying “values preserved through critical period” or something else?
So, your main original point is that speaking down to salon transhumanists publicly is counterproductive to getting them to be more involved. This is a debatable point, and I’m sure there are many who fall on both sides of the debate, but for all practical purposes it tends to be a technicality - what leads most people to transhumanism are stories or factual scientific articles, not opinion pieces by transhumanists.
In the real world, nothing is 0% or 100%, right?
December 23rd, 2006 at 12:03 pm
I think Friendly Al should be trained as a comedian.
Posthuman wit ~= Monty Python’s deadly joke skit?
Truly, this is an existential risk worth disregarding.
December 23rd, 2006 at 11:09 pm
Transhumanists and Singularitarians need to read as broadly and deeply as possible. Become true multi-discipliarians and transdisciplinarians. One may not be a cutting-edge mathematician, say, or physicist or AGI-developer, but one can keep up with basic concepts and conceptual development. And one can certainly learn basic economics, public choice theory and institutional economics (the economics of politics, institutions, and bureaucracy), basic psychology, etc. As Dave Deutsch says in his *Fabric of Reality*, our knowledge is increasing both in terms of breadth and depth—and depth is winning.
You’ll find my bibliographic and website suggestions in furtherance of this cause throughout my musings here and over at (now all-but-defunct, but still available w/archives) FutureHi.net
And I agree with Chris: Let the AGI be ultimately a humorist: A la Monty Python: “And now for something completely DIFFERENT…”
December 24th, 2006 at 3:45 am
It is nothing wrong with a sect or a cult, as soon as it is able to actually bring down to Earth their Jesus, or whatever magic power they claim to relate-to.
The Transhumanism cult (maybe the Singularitanian sect, maybe some other …) will be the first to work, though. For they are betting to the cold science, which works by the definition.
December 25th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Hi Michael,
Here’s what I’m trying to mean, as simple and telling as I can manage. All I ask from you – since I should really be helping too if I think this is so important – is that you try to meet me somewhere in the area where I’m trying to go, if not in agreement, in nodding empathy.
We’re assuming determinism, I’m sure, even if somewhere we accept a necessary, arbitrarily distant epistemic horizon beyond which is necessarily uncertainty. So what I mean is that I believe, currently as a heuristic, that an important portion of salon transhumanists don’t ultimately want to be confronted with hints by other transhumanists, their potential leaders or colleagues, that whether there’s a better mind between theirs and causa sui or not is a negligible, non-problematic issue. Heuristically speaking, behavior/artifact units, appropriately to motivate each salon transhumanist with some potential, should be about working toward lots of fun and excitement with always only their own mind between their own system and causa sui.
If 0% death rate necessarily with a full-population retirement community is ’suppose to be the main experienced utility of a sufficient solution’, we should not usually pretend that this would be just absolutely fantastic and not be as minimally transient as possible with the possibility nonetheless of chronic, irreversible exploitation by “automated, deterministic, infrastructural blackboxes” (to say that anything is deterministic when determinism is already presupposed is utterly meaningless). States of affairs can be worse than having to die. ‘Being alive for all time’, merely, is not always the most appealing abstract ideal. It’s consistent with ‘being alive for all time in a cell without stimuli and then only with extremely exiguous internally generated realities’.
December 25th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
I think I sit in the intersection between group 9 and group 6.
While I believe that cryonics, the defeat of aging, molecular manufacturing and strong AI are scientifically plausible, I always found the market worship, minarchism and Libertarianism that shoots through the other groups distasteful.
Also I’m skeptical this stuff will usher in utopia. It will exchange new troubles for old. Cascio’s fabber spam being just one minor example of this.
December 30th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Översikt över transhumanismen
Den har kallats världens farligaste idé, transhumanismen. Hur ser då den rörelse ut som driver denna idé? Michael Anissimov har gjort en översikt över olika subgrupper inom transhumanismen:
Accelerating Future � Transhumanist Sects
Han delar…
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
“As far as I can tell, there are no transhumanists in Wyoming.”
I can think of a couple moderators from Wyoming on one transhumanist site you frequent. We just tend not to join organized groups.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
But this is just a Frappr map I was talking about, for goshsakes, not an organized group.
Every transhumanist should join our Frappr map.