 Candidate Benzion will be the first in our speaking order. Candidate Shatky will be the second in our speaking order. And Candidate Taylor will be the third in our speaking order. To our audience observing this debate, thank you very much for joining us today on September 17th, 2018 for the fourth and final virtual debate among the United States Transhumanist Party. Candidate Benzion is for the nomination for the Office of the United States. We are joined today by candidates Johannes Benzion, Jonathan Shatky, and Matt Taylor. I myself am Junati Soler of the second, the chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party. Unfortunately, while we were scheduled to have candidate Vruan joining us for this debate, he was called to some emergency duties and therefore he will not be able to attend this evening, we regret this. We benefited from his comments, his insights. Nonetheless, in this debate, we also expect to have some thoughtful interaction on the pitch. With that being said, the format of this debate is going to be the same as the third virtual debate, which you heard on Saturday, September 14th. We have 13 questions that have been crowdsourced from our members and these questions are going to be asked to the winner. Each candidate will have three minutes to address the first 12 questions and two minutes to address the 13th question. Candidates are not obligated to use all of their time. If they do not use all of their time on any given question, that time will then be deferred to substance speaking slots. And at the end for concluding remarks, there will not be a specific time alignment. So candidates will have as much time as they had accumulated up to 10 minutes in the debate. And then we will go through the rotation and essentially draw down on time until every candidate has either run out of time or decided to relinquish his time. Mr. Shacky, are you familiar with how to mute your microphone? Because there's a lot of interference. I believe. Sorry, Janati. Yes, I did that. Yeah, iPhone's not a bad idea with this many folks on the call. We are getting some feedback and some delayed audio. So I would encourage each candidate who is not speaking to mute their microphone until it is time for that candidate to speak. And now, without further ado, let us launch into our first question for this debate. This question comes from our member, Thomas James O'Carroll. Mr. O'Carroll observes that as a candidate for office and as president of the United States, if elected, some of the outcomes you achieve will be based solely on the person that you are and the morals that you hold. Tell us about the person you believe yourself to be and why that strengthens the person who will be remembered by history during your presidency. Candidate Benzion, you have the floor for three minutes. Well, yes, sir. Thank you for that question, Thomas O'Carroll. I'd like to tell you a little bit about myself. I've had a chance to share a lot of information and wonderful, wonderful conversations. But I'll tell you a little bit. I'm Johann Benzion. I'm a career educator, a curriculum developer and also an entrepreneur. I have a biotech startup. My partners are, and I are working now on a microbial biosynthesis project therein. We just got that lab set up starting to do some really interesting work there. Like a lot of people in my generation, I've worked in a lot of different fields, had to do some different kinds of work. But I've been in this world of organizing for quite a while. Many of you know me as the founder and chair of the Arizona Transhumanist Party and a ranking officer in some other similar organizations. I believe I can bring an understanding of public policy, particularly as it relates to technology. That is our area of focus. That these other candidates don't always bring to the table, many of them not really trying to seemingly try to bring that to the table. And maybe it's not such an easy thing to sit down and write a platform with a great team that I worked with from the Arizona Transhumanist Party, like the Futurist New Deal for America. So a lot of people in this race, not speaking of anyone at this panel specifically, I haven't been able to really do that. And some of those people have had to rely on a lot of Amtics and that alone, it makes for an interesting primary. But that's really not what the job requires. To be the representative of this organization at the national level, you have to understand these policies. You have to be a professional presenter. And you really have to be passionate about the emerging technology that is the reason that we're all here. You have to have a coherent vision and the Futurist New Deal for America is precisely that. All of us, we've been working over these many years to set the stage for longevity escape velocity. The Futurist New Deal for America was crafted with a universal longevity escape velocity in mind. At first glance, if you look at these e-governance reforms and these economic reforms, you might need a little more information to connect the dots there, but we have to be able to build a society that can sustain the wellbeing of our citizens in the right way. And we have to do our due diligence there. Sadly, we haven't done that, particularly in recent decades. And we are close enough now. We have the prototypes for things that would allow us to have longer lifespans. So what remains is a broad public consensus. And we need to be reaching out to folks in every way that we can through policy clubs, like this one, through your own personal outreach and discussions and in promoting other businesses and initiatives. We can prepare a path and we must do it. Radical life extension is closer than you think. So get ready. Thank you. Thank you, Candidate Benzian. I will say that you were right on time. And therefore we will proceed to Candidate Schatke. You have three minutes for the first debate question. Candidate Schatke, I believe you are muted. I am Jonathan Schatke and I have tried to live my life as a man of honor. I've done everything I can to be honorable in my business and in my personal life. I believe a man of honor is the most important part of being president. You are going to see situations as a president where you are not going to have a chance to get all the information. And so I have to honor your vows to the Constitution and to the people of the United States. And I think that that's the most important part of the job. In order to free your immortality, I want to return the Constitution to prominence in governance. And I think that that's the best way to handle it according to the vow that I would take as president. That's all. Thank you, Candidate Schatke. One minute, eight seconds accumulated that will carry over to your future time segments. Next, we will have Candidate Matt Taylor-Clarke give his introduction in four minutes. Candidate Taylor, you have the floor. Thank you. First, I'd like to thank Ginali for moderating this debate and to Steele for providing us with the platform to express our views. I strive to follow a personal code of ethics based on the writings of D. Joseph Jock that defines and informs all of my actions and decisions. Number one, I will develop my life for the greater good. This is why I'm here. This is my way to reach the most people to promote transhumanist ideals, which are to the benefit of all of America and all of the world. Number two, I will place character above riches and concern for others above personal wealth. My decisions are based on what is right, not what will lie in my pockets. Number three, I will never boast but cherish humility instead. Our current president likes to lie about his accomplishments, but I will be a humble public servant. Number four, I will speak the truth at all times and forever keep my word. We need to be able to trust our president who is the mouthpiece of our government. Number five, I will defend those who cannot defend themselves. This tenant directly informs my platform. Number six, I will honor and respect all people and refute sexism, racism and intolerance in all its guises. I will govern all Americans with fairness and equality. Number seven, I will uphold justice by being fair to all. Number eight, I will be faithful in love and loyal and friendship. Nine, I will abhor scandals and gossip neither partake nor delight in them. Ten, I will be generous to the poor and those who need help. I hold that to be true in my personal as well as my public life. Eleven, I will forgive when asked that my own mistakes will be forgiven. I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong and to change my mind when new information comes to light. And twelve, I will live my life with courtesy and honor from this day forward. That's my personal code of honor, code of ethics. That is my way of life and it will inform all of my decisions as president of the United States. Thank you, candidate Taylor. You spoke for two minutes and 25 seconds, so you have 35 seconds over to your future time segments. And thank you to all candidates for your responses to the first question, a highly important question on moral character. Now we proceed to our second question from Denora Delphine, the director of admissions and public relations for the U.S. transhumanist party. Ms. Delphine asks, what do you think people want in a good leader? Which may not necessarily be what you think makes a good leader. So focus on what you consider the public to desire in terms of the attributes of a good leader. Candidate Benzion, you have the floor for three minutes. Yes. Well, I believe that our civil society has a blind spot right now about this number one value of the transhumanist party, which is life extension. And so this is an interesting question, and I thank Denora for posing it. Life extension and related public health outcomes is the most important goal to people like us. And finding the best way to make that happen I believe the primary leadership quality that people are looking for in this organization. I don't know that I would have the precise same association with the transhumanist party if radical life extension were not placed as highly in our charter document and organizing principles as it is. This is something that is very, very important to me personally and professionally. There have been people in the course of this primary who have tried to downplay the role of life extension. And I think this is a mistake. I think that whether the people of this country realize it today or not that we must carry the standard for this important set of public health goals. And if you are someone who has been trying to deflect from that if your answer in discussing these core values of our organization generally is yes, but and then some obfuscation changing the subject, flipping the script. Maybe stop doing that. That's not why we're here. This is a policy club that is intended to advance a life extension and techno-futurist outcomes. Those discussions are of great importance to us. And we want to be having positive discussions along those lines and advancing this agenda in the public square. And if the subject is broached and super longevity is brought up, initiatives to improve these outcomes is brought up. Consider not listening to reasons why we shouldn't be doing this or why we shouldn't be talking, why we should be talking about another subject. But rather support candidates who are transhumanist through and through. In the immortal words of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, we do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard. And shifting the focus, the many trillions of dollars that we now spend effectively on end of life care, emergency services, to preventative measures, longevity-oriented healthcare. It's no easy feat, but it is what we will do in the coming years. And we will save millions of lives and make our public health systems and networks run more efficiently in doing so. Thank you for your time. Thank you, candidate Benzion. You were again right on time in your response. We now proceed to candidate Shacky. Shacky, what do you think people want in a good leader? I believe people wish a leader to lead, to describe a vision for the country that they can get behind. And I think the vision of the transhumanist party is a strong vision. I think the vision of growth through technology in science, growth through technology in healthcare and bringing the benefits of that technology to all of the country. I think that's a message that the country would get behind and would be very happy to follow along with. And they don't expect a leader to direct their every step, but to guide them in what will give them a place in the goal. And that is what a leader and as president, I think that's exactly what we need to do. So I think that's what people are looking for. Thank you, candidate Shacky. We will carry 100 seconds over to your future speaking slots. Next, we have candidate Matt Taylor. Candidate Taylor, in three minutes, what do you think people want in a good leader? Well, with respect to Ms. Delfine, I can only know for sure what qualities I'd like to see in a leader. I think to speculate otherwise is a dangerous road. So allow me to explain where a good leader is to me. A good leader inspires. A good leader has a bold vision and pursues it with tenacity. A good leader listens and gathers information, all the information they can to make the best decision. A good leader leads by example. They are not afraid to take on the burden, the hard work necessary to pursue their vision and transform it into reality. A good leader surrounds themselves with the best people so that they can efficiently gather information to solve problems and effectively delegate authority. I can be that leader for the transhumanist party and for America. Thank you. Thank you, Candidate Taylor. We will carry 130 seconds over to your future speaking times. Thank you to all the candidates for your responses to the second question. Now, for the third question, we move to an inquiry from Albert Tanvir Ahmed who asks, what can you do to keep us alive forever? And I like to characterize this as the transhumanist variant of the question, what's in it for me? So Candidate Benzion, what can you do to keep us alive forever? Yes, that is a question that keeps me up at night. And no, in all seriousness, in all seriousness, it's the thing that I think about the most. How can we do this for the people of the United States? How can we set the stage for a universal longevity escape velocity as soon as humanly possible? As I mentioned a few moments ago, the difference between between dallying on this could be the difference between many millions of lives lost. And that is a tragic prospect. So we want to do that as soon as humanly possible and the future's new deal was for America was crafted to better bring about these ends. So, so Mr. Ahmed, I would say you're a young man. So you're fortunate. You've been born at a lucky time in history. You're doubly fortunate there. So I would say you should take care of yourself and your chances for remaining preternaturally young and healthy, even beyond the next five or six decades might be quite good. But none of us has a crystal ball on this point. But as we know, we are having demonstrated effects of reversing cell death and similar and similar things. Ray Kurzweil says that as of 2020, he believes that he has reversed his own cell death. So next year, and move and beyond, Ray Kurzweil will be getting younger with every passing year rather than older. And that is an exciting prospect of true. Even if there's a kernel of truth to that, it has tremendous public health implications. And there are many ways that we can be better better improving outcomes in the public and private sector, some of which we will be discussing in the course of this debate. You know, I just saw a Wall Street Journal article that came out quite recently says that Israel prepares to unleash AI on healthcare. I shared it with quite a number of people. And this is a kind of initiative that I've talked to a great many scientists, a great many medical men and women, a great many AI experts in the course of hosting the futures New Deal podcast and other events. And I feel more confident than ever that we are moving in the right direction to be using automation and AI digitalization to create a civilization where we can have prevention, as I mentioned in the previous question at the center of what we are doing as a society. And I happen to think that many more public initiatives would help with this about many private initiatives will help with this as well. I agree with many of John Schatke's points on a lot of these things. My feeling is that we must do the thing that works that saves those lives. And that is always an open question. None of us does have that crystal ball. But it is very important that all of you have the courage of your convictions to speak to people about these prototypes, about these life extension technologies, all of the biomedical breakthroughs that might affect you, that might affect your loved ones, that might affect those around you. Speak of it in a positive light. Talk about these prototypes as they exist in reality, not far future considerations. And tell people what's happening now with life extension, what it means for them, what it means for all of us as a civilization. If we're unwilling to do this as a society, we run the very real risk of slowing the pace of biomedical breakthroughs, irrespective of the focus of private or public monies. The onus is on us, and we must avoid shifting focus away from this in research and particularly in public discourse. As we said, there is a lot being done in research, not nearly enough being done in terms of public consensus. I'll bank the remainder of my time. Thank you, Gennady. Thank you, Candidate Ben-Zion. You have spoken for three minutes and 58 seconds for your future speaking slot. You will have the opportunity to make up some of that time later on if you so choose. But for now, we will move to Candidate Chacky. Candidate Chacky, what can you do to keep us alive forever? I already heard from the mortality. There's a lot of things that the government would specifically destroy the ability of doctors to keep you alive. So I would work immediately to remove those impediments to your health care. I would privatize the FDA and make it an advisory body and allow whatever you want to put into your body to be your decision. And with your doctor's consultation and proper examination of the science that is available to you, I think you can do a lot better job than a bureaucrat. And you meant caring for yourself. The second thing to do is to remove government funding from health care. And the reason for this is because government funding is rent-seeking. A government-funded research project does as little as they possibly can to continue the government funding. They do not ever want to find the actual solution and that is antithetical to actually getting research and development done. I believe that the profit motive is the way to incentivize companies in order to get new research and development done. And that is not going to happen under grant situations from a government. It's just the incentive structure is exactly backwards for what you get. The third thing is, of course, to expand free government care in a way that doesn't clog the system of people who are seeking private care and doesn't inflate the prices of private care unnecessarily. So I would remove all of social security recipients and Medicare and Medicaid from the private sector and have them be served by the VA. And that way, while we would have to expand the VA in order to care for all those people, it would remove another barrier to getting quality health care at a good price. And I think that's my policy on this. Thank you, Candidate Schachke. You spoke for the allotted three minutes. So now we proceed to Candidate Matt Taylor. Candidate Taylor, what can you do to keep us alive forever? Once immortality was the domain of the alchemist, but today life extension has become a pursuit of mainstream science and medicine. This is the most exciting, most hopeful time in history to be alive. The first immortal has probably already been born. Radical life extension, even to the point of immortality, is the major goal of the transhumanist movement. But before we can reach that goal, we need to extend human life in smaller increments. My plan is to invest in medical research, to streamline the FDA approval process to promote innovation in medicine and medical technology, to change the medical patent process to bring life-saving and life-extending medicines and technologies more quickly and more affordably to the public. Public research through the NIH is also necessary because we need to ensure that life extension does not only help the super rich. You and I and everyone need and deserve to live the longest, highest quality life possible. Furthermore, life extension is worthless without tackling the greatest existential threat to humanity, global climate change. Unless we bring together the greatest minds to solve this problem and unless we rein in the industries pouring tons of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere and unless we move to renewable energy and nuclear energy, huge regions of our planet are going to become uninhabitable, driving refugees out of these areas. And until we solve this problem, all of the life extension and anti-aging technology will be worthless. But I think that we can solve this and I think that we will solve this with the right direction and the right leadership. And furthermore, I think that then we'll be able to focus on anti-aging, which I think is the real answer to life extension because it's all about not just adding years on to the end of a person's life, but we have to improve the quality of their life throughout and adding those years on into the middle or the earlier part of their life are going to make them more enjoyable and higher quality. Thank you, Candida Taylor. We will add 18 seconds to your future speaking times. Next, we proceed to our fourth question from Pavel Ilan, who is the Secretary of the U.S. Transhumanist Party. And Mr. Ilan asks, how will you mediate between different groups of interest within transhumanism? How will you have a dialogue between people of different interests, aesthetics, and ethical philosophies? How will you overcome othering and tribalism within transhumanism? So this particular question focuses on dynamics within the transhumanist movement itself. Candidate Benzion, you have three minutes. Yes, it's an interesting question and an important question. And one that has been at the center of my thinking and at the center of the thinking of the architects of the future is New Deal from the first. As someone remarked in the pre-show, our esteemed friend and moderator, Steele Archer, I believe remarked, I am somewhat running to the right of myself on certain of these points, particularly as it relates to reforms in the tax code. But that is because I feel that it is important to appeal to all of these different groups of diversity of political opinions across the political compass. And also because I think that the life saving qualities in these reforms, particularly in the federal land dividend originated by Zoltanistfin that carried on in the futurist New Deal for America in the form of a basic income for all adults, adult citizens in this country is something that we need to do immediately in the near term. It will be the first initiative that we will be working on on January 21st, 2021, those first 90 days for Ben Zion presidency. And that is how important this is, taking care of our middle class, reviving this country, turning things back into onto the right path. That is more important than spending many years bickering with the Charles Cokes and the powers that be as to what their marginal tax rate should or should not be. I was moved by what candidate Taylor said moments ago about climate change. In this context, I'm also reminded of my recent discussions that I've had with Ira Pastor and with a fellow candidate and friend John Carrick's. He and I spoke last night, some of you have seen that discussion. These are people who are both working on market solutions and working very hard to solve the serious problems of our time, namely public health and life extensions and the climate crisis, respectively, of those two. And even though I have focused on certain kind of private sector public sector initiatives, I don't want to undervalue the good work that people are doing in the private sector. These are real operators that we know in this organization. It's easy to stand at the sidelines and be an armchair philosopher. My advice to those people is if you are a free market advocate, build something and fix these problems instead of going on and on about these things. And the Futurist New Deal's regulatory frameworks and other initiatives to deal with these problems. Of this, I would say, again, I do not have this rigid political philosophy. I am in favor of what works. And we have to be remain agile in that and I believe the Futurist New Deal for America is the best option of moving forward. Thank you, Candidate Benson. We will subtract 12 seconds from your future speaking times. Next, we proceed to Candidate Chacky with regard to the fourth question. How will you mediate between different groups of interest within transhumanism? How will you overcome tribalism and othering and spark dialogue among individuals of different convictions? Well, when you have a number of different subgroups in a group, you begin by listening to what everybody is interested in. And then unless that is something that is in clear conflict with the ideals of the group, then you give them a purpose inside your group in order to contribute to the greater of the group's mission. In this case, if I was to become president, I would take the cryonics people and help them to build up a program of cryonics for the end of life preservation of every American if they if they think they could do that. If in terms of the life extension people, I would talk to them about format in a life extension working group within the party. And then you have the you can give each of these people input and strengthen their own position and yet by combining their efforts, we end up with a greater whole than any of those groups would have come up with acting alone. So we have AI people in the party and they will have strengths and they might not care about you know cryonics, but I don't see why they should be hostile to the cryonics people. There's a lot of different issues to work out. So you allow each person to contribute in their position of strength and you don't look for them to necessarily contribute in every position of the and I think that's the best way to work on building a large umbrella that can cover everyone and their needs and and desires in transhumanist endeavors. Thank you candidate chat key. We will carry 41 seconds over to your future speaking slots. Next we have candidate Taylor. How will you mediate between different groups of interest within transhumanism? Have a dialogue among people of different philosophies, interests, and aesthetics and help overcome othering and tribalism. I'm disappointed that there is any other ring going on within the transhumanist movement. After all, I think we're all here for the same reasons to promote the ideals of transhumanism to pursue the advancement of humanity through technology, through medicine, through science. But it's human nature to align yourself with like-minded individuals and to believe that your own reasoning is superior to others. At its core the U.S. transhumanist party is a democratic organization and its membership will decide the direction it will take and what values it will promote. But it's important that we bring together representative stakeholders of the various factions within transhumanism in an open dialogue to work through those differences of opinion and to continue to redirect our energy towards the promotion of transhumanism rather than inviting. We believe I think we agree on what the puzzle will look like when it's been assembled. We're just disagreeing on whether to start in the middle where we recognize that picture or to start on the edge where we can find the border. And I think our similarity should unite us more than our differences divide us. With the right leadership we can and will overcome our differences. Thank you, candidate Taylor. We will carry 87 seconds over to your future speaking slots. Thank you to all the candidates for your responses to our fourth question. And now we proceed to our fifth question also from Secretary Pavel Illin who asks how will you communicate with the non-transhumanist population and persuade people to become transhumanists and work with a lower future shock level audience? How will you overcome other and tribalism within the broader society? So while the previous question focused on the transhumanist movement itself, this question focuses on the broader society. Candidate Benzion, you have the floor for three minutes. Yes, well, that is a critical question. Is it not outreach? And I will say again that the main at the risk of repeating myself, the main aim in the crafting of the future is New Deal and in the crafting of the charter documents of the United States Transhumanist Party and other affiliated and similar organizations. We've worked very hard in setting these up and the idea is that we must be able to do that outreach and we must prepare people for these technologies which can sustain a universe to longevity escape velocity. And yet there are quite some number of people out there, casual observers, people who are not reading a lot of emerging biomedicine news on a daily basis who might not be aware of this and who might find the idea of a preternaturally long lifespan quite disconfident. And I believe that we can be very hopeful that these people will soon be turned to our side. I do believe that. I believe that as we are able to provide these services to them just as a matter of course through the existing public health channels that those concerns will quickly fall away that that future shock will quickly abate. Quite recently I read and shared this wonderful article that I mentioned about digitalization and personalized medicine in Israel. People are beginning to make use of their public health system to do the kinds of things that we've been talking about on the Futurist New Deal podcast on a daily basis. And it's the thing that makes me want to be doing this work on behalf of the USTP. It's the thing that makes me want to be doing this work as an interviewer. And we can do this good work for life extension. The proof of concept concerns that many of these people have or other concerns that might derive from some knee-jerk reactions or provincial thinking they will soon be replaced by optimism and healthy self-interest. As I've said many many times in these interviews there is something that we could describe as a de facto life extensionist and that is overwhelmingly the US citizenry. And all we have to do is plant the seed of these ideas in their mind and make these things available to them. As so many people are saying that we will soon be able to do and our good work will be done. I'll bank the rest of my time. Thank you candidate Benzai for your future speaking slots so that offsets some of your previous remarks. And next we proceed to candidate Chad Key. You have three minutes. How will you communicate with the non-transhumanist population work with a lower future shock level audience and help overcome othering and tribalism within the broader society? Yeah I think I think most people just don't realize how much of a transhumanist they are. When a person uses a cell phone they are nascent cybernetically enhancing their intellect. When a person uses a hip replacement they are a nascent cyborg. When somebody gets all these things that are just natural force of action for people these days are nascent transhumanism. When somebody talks to a computer voice or pre-screening of a call to their bank they are participating with AI. All of these things they just don't realize that they're a transhumanist. When the business puts that and they are thinking I'm just going to do something to save a little cash that they are hiring an AI in order to do their job. AI is crucial. It is still that first step AI sentience being part of their business and part of their employees. So I think it's just explaining to them how what they are already doing what they want in their life and nobody wants to die if they're healthy. Right? Nobody says what they are. No. It's who are in pain either mental pain or physical pain who decide right now is my time to end. Those people are would be like a life extension they just don't know. So I think it's merely a case of showing where the natural desires of everybody are expressed under the transhumanist party then. And I that yield on my time. Thank you candidate chat key. We will add 23 seconds to future speaking next. We proceed to candidate Taylor. You have three minutes to discuss how you will communicate with the non-transhumanist population. Work with a lower future shock level audience and help overcome othering and tribalism within the broader society. That division between the left and the right between the rich and the poor between the old and the young between urban and rural communities. That's the greatest problem in American society today. It's led to gridlock and stagnation and we've even seen outright violence because of that division. However, on some level all Americans want the outcomes that transhumanism promises. We all want to live longer healthier more enjoyable lives. We all want technological advancements to help humanity. We all want a world free of need. On some level, we are all transhumanist. I came to transhumanism because I was drawn to it because it spoke directly to my beliefs about about life extension about health directly with my beliefs about the use of technology and the pursuit of science. And I think that we can communicate this with the with the non transhumanist community out there. Transhumanism can be the vehicle to achieve the ends that I spoke of longer lives world free of need, technological advancements that will help all of us. And so transhumanism can become the scaffolding upon which we rebuild that American cooperative spirit. Transhumanism can be the stitching that that men's the torn fabric of American society. It's just a matter of spreading the word about transhumanism in a positive light and showing the way to the future that we all desire. Thank you. Thank you candidate Taylor. We will add 45 seconds to your future speaking slots now. A lot of our audience members observed some audio interference when candidate Chaki was speaking. So I'm going to give candidate Chaki the opportunity to restate at least the salient points of his answer so that we make sure we have it on record. Oh, terribly sorry about that. Basically, I believe that most of the things that transhumanism wants to accomplish are things that the vast majority of the people and businesses want to accomplish also. AI, additional life of healthy and long life. These are all things that everybody wants. So I think that that's the way to do it is just to explain how what transhumanism is about is what they're about. Thank you candidate Chaki. We heard you much more clearly this time. So we appreciate having those remarks available to our viewers. And that concludes the fifth question. We proceed to the sixth question. Also from Secretary Pavel Ilyn. This time focusing on the healthcare system. He asks, how will you reform the healthcare system within the United States in order to ensure and accelerate the arrival of life extension therapies and the accessibility of those therapies? Candidate Benzion, you have the floor for three minutes. Yes, sir. This is a wonderful question from Pavel. And I would also encourage folks to go back to last week's podcast. I interviewed Pavel Ilyn and he had a lot of interesting things to say on healthcare and also on a basic income. He had some even some kind words to say about the federal land dividend. This is something that we must do and there are manifold approaches and many kinds of initiatives that we can be setting forward to do so. I've mentioned some of these kinds of initiatives in the earlier parts of this discussion. Incorporating personalized medicine using digitalization and automation to shift those many trillion dollars in this United States from effectively triage and end of life care to prevention, constant oversight, doing the good work that would allow us to treat aging as a disease. And as Benjamin Franklin famously said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We can put those many trillions of dollars of funds to far better. It's very fine to hear other candidates talk about freedom in the abstract, but the best sort of freedom that we can hope for as transhumanists is the freedom to live well, to live long and to prosper. And for that, we must be willing to do more than pay empty lip service. We must be willing to take a stand to build these new policy initiatives to support these private undertakings and research and to do the things that might tend to run counter to what is more mainstream, but we must do it because it is right. And in doing so, we will also be able to streamline lower the costs of medication as they come to market. We will be able to, we must also do something that John Schaffke mentioned, but I don't think we can go quite that far, but we must allow for a more robust right to try and allow our people to make use of life extension medications as they become available, also lowering the cost of medications and the time in streamlining those processes. Thank you, Steele, for addressing this technical issue once again. My name is Janati Stolyeroff, the second chairman of the United States Transhumanist Party. We are here in the middle of quite an interesting debate, the fourth virtual debate among the U.S. Transhumanist Party presidential candidates. We are currently discussing question six from U.S. Transhumanist Party Secretary Pavel Illin, who asks, how will you reform the healthcare system within the United States in order to ensure and accelerate the arrive life extension accessibility of these therapies? Candidate Benzion, you have the floor for three minutes. Yes, sir. This is something that we must do. It is, as I've mentioned, the first pillar of the United States Transhumanist Party life extension. It is the most talked about issue in all of these organizing documents and within our organization. And there are many kinds of initiatives that we can be doing. I mentioned this wonderful article talking about Israelis incorporating personalized medicine and digitalization into their public health service and the ways that we the ways of the idea that aging is a disease if we have a public consensus on this point and we begin to legislate and organize our civil society in other ways around this idea, we can save ourselves a lot of pain, so to speak. And so we can be focusing on this prevention. We can be focusing on this constant oversight of citizens. We can be focusing on these life extension interventions that will shift this money. We spend many trillions of dollars in this country, as I mentioned, on what is effectively end of life care. And we don't, of course, want to harm people who are in that system today. We don't begrudge them with those services, but we can be doing a lot better. We can prevent them from ever being an extremist. We can do that by building out a public health service that has the digitalization and personalized medicine and longevity at its center. And in doing so, we can allow them to benefit from these preventative measures. As Benjamin Franklin famously said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And this is what we can do in the public health service. And in doing so, we can be at the cutting edge of public health in this 21st century. I mentioned before a few other podcasts that I've done with people on this subject, people who are very devoted to this subject. I think of Paul Spiegel who has a keen legal mind and a very deep understanding of the medical world and is working very hard to see that these kind of things become a reality. My running mate and I have had dealings with high level officials in Estonia to discuss these kind of digitalization efforts. Of course, we know from our other talks that Estonia is effectively a world leader in e-governance and they are the only country that has a fully fledged eye voting system, a blockchain voting system, like the one promised in the future a new deal for America. And because they have done this due diligence, because they have done this basic work of building a public health service, of beginning to use digitalization in many ways through various e-services more robustly in their civil society. Now they are also on the cusp of doing what the Israelis are purported to be doing, building a longevity public health service that focuses on prevention and that costs in time, I believe in very short time, pennies on the dollar. To operate. And that is the also a point that should not go unheeded. It's very fine to hear other candidates talking about freedom in the abstract. But the best sort of freedom that we can all hope for is the freedom to live well, to live long and to prosper. And to achieve that you must be willing to take a stand to be build new public policy initiatives to support private sector programs and research and to do things that we know we must do as life extensionists. And some of those things involve privatization. We do need and similar it really depends on the situation. I don't believe that I agree with candidate Shatky in privatizing all of these all of these bodies. But we do need a full and robust right to try. This have many good things that will derive from this streamlining shortening the pipeline for medicines coming to market lowering the cost of those medications. This is something that allows people in our community to make use of new life extension medications as soon as they become available. All of these things we must do to build a society that will sustain a universal longevity escape velocity. Thank you. I'll bank the remainder of my time. Thank you candidate Benzia. So you spoke for four minutes and 40 seconds. We will add we will subtract 100 seconds from your future speaking slots and next we proceed to candidate Shatky. Candidate Shatky, how will you reform the health care system within the United States? That we know right now many of the things that we know right now that can achieve additional healthy life are blocked in America because of FDA rules. Stem cell therapies medicines that have been demonstrated and used are being used used up in other countries are blocked by the FDA. So the first and foremost thing we need to do is remove the FDA from the issue so that people can get their therapies that they decide are best for their life extension. The accessibility and the cost of health care in America is caused by two things. One, automatic government markdowns in pricing where Medicare sometimes requires as much as an 85 percent just markdown. And so obviously they have to charge six times as much in order to get what they really need to from Medicare. And the AMA has set up a cartelization of the medical profession in order to do a monopoly position and we need to break that monopoly position. So I propose a non-government entity set up by the U.S. government that would independently license additional doctors and those doctors would at the very least be able to practice in VA hospitals do it in the military and on places that took Medicare patients Medicaid. So that those licenses would still be very valuable and useful and that would increase the competition in the medical industry which would bring medical care to more people at a better price throughout the country. So that's the two prong approach. We get rid of the government messing with the market and then we get rid of the monopolistic AMA stranglehold on doctors and then so that I yield the remainder of my time. Thank you candidate Chavky. You will have 19 seconds carried over to your future speaking times and now we proceed to candidate Matt Taylor. How will you reform the health care system within the United States in order to ensure and accelerate the arrival of life extension therapies and the availability of those therapies. Well thank you chairman and steel for their quick action there to get us back online because it's important that we get these the message out to the public and this is right now our best forum. Hopefully we'll expand in the future. My goal is to work with legislators to provide wider access to life saving and life extending medicine including by providing a public Medicare option. No family should lose a loved one because they can't afford treatment. Nobody should be denied the best of care because their insurance company wants to save money. No one should go into debt or be forced to declare bankruptcy because of the high cost of medical treatment. When I needed surgery and and radiation treatment my wife spent hours on the phone arguing with the insurance company that my treatment should be covered and we sent many letters appealing the insurance company's decision to deny certain parts of my care because my doctors who were the best we could find in the region and among the best in the nation they were out of state and so therefore they cost the insurance company a little more money. In the time when I needed her most my wife when she was already stressed to the max because of my cancer she had to argue with a company that only wanted to save money that didn't care about the quality of my treatment. That shouldn't happen. Now I was fortunate that we were able to use our savings to pay the difference in what they wouldn't cover but others are not so fortunate. Public option would prevent this and drive down healthcare costs overall and life extension and anti-aging need to be part of that coverage as well as mental health services. We need to prevent illness as much as treat it so that all Americans can live long healthy lives. Thank you. Thank you candidate Taylor. We will add 50 seconds to your future speaking times and now we will proceed to question number seven of our virtual debate. Question seven is from our member Mike de Verde and Mr. de Verde asks would you support increases in funding for the National Institutes of Health or NIH to be used for basic research into transhumanist technologies? If so, what federal departments and programs if any would you cut simultaneously? So candidate Benzion you have three minutes for that question. Thank you sir. I do have some thoughts on this subject and I spoke to my friend Dr. Dan Elton who's been kind enough to endorse the futurist new deal for America. Dr. Dan Elton of the National Institutes of Health he does have some first-hand knowledge of this very concern and so we were able to speak at length on this subject recently and in fact we've done talks before he's been kind enough to participate in some of these things including coming on the futurist new deal podcast and we're going to do another talk on this subject. There are many ways that we can be courting or otherwise facilitating this good life extension work finding researchers in this field and bringing them into this organization. Of course we need to be shifting the focuses of these organizations to better public health outcomes. As I've said many times I may be sounding like a broken record treating aging as a disease and adjusting our initiatives and undertakings accordingly. And we also have to resist the urge to seize upon every flimsy pretext particularly for cutting medical research. It's been done in the past and we don't want to see it happening particularly when so many lives are at stake as we are on the verge of radical life extension. So whether it is in the public or private sector we must support this good work and this is truly the best way to hasten a longevity escape velocity at a civilizational level. I will thank the remainder of my time. Thank you. Thank you candidate Benzion. We will add 81 seconds to your future speaking slots. Next we proceed to candidate Chattke would you increase for the NIH and if so what federal departments and programs would you cut simultaneously? I think that if we privatize the National Institute of Health rather than keep it as a government-funded entity that and provide a tax incentive where the corporations are allowed to write off any medical R&D expenses including money donated to the NIH I think that that would be a much more direct method of making basic research happen better and faster. Government grants are of necessity an inefficient thing it is merely a side effect of it being a government grant you can't avoid that. And as for federal departments and programs to cut simultaneously there are a number of them we can get while I am in full support of private funding of the arts and humanities the government it does not have that mandate and so I believe that we could endow a privatized National Institute of Health with a much better outcome than if we continue under government oversight with politics involved. Thank you candidate Chatke we will add 84 seconds to your future speaking slots next we proceed to candidate Taylor would you support increases in funding for the NIH and if so what federal departments and programs would you cut simultaneous? Thank you Mr. DeVerde for this question this is a major pillar of my new vision publicly funded research is the best option and really the only good option because the results of that research need to be made available to all I worry if the case that Mr. Chatke has put forward corporations will keep this research on you know hidden for themselves they're in it for profit while public research becomes a property of all to be pursued by with further research as it's made available to more and more scientists with the brightest medical and scientific minds focus on developing medicine and technology we can improve all of our lives currently the NIH invests about 40 billion dollars in the medical research about 25 times that almost a trillion dollars just shy of a trillion dollars is spent on military and defense spending for half of my life we've been at war it's time we end that war we bring our troops home and we redirect some of that spending to projects that will benefit all of us including greater investment in the NIH Thank you candidate Taylor we will add 90 seconds to your future speaking times and thank you to all candidates for addressing question seven we proceed to question eight once again from secretary paul illan what do you consider to be the best approach to achieve a universal basic income and why is it the best approach candidate benzion you have three minutes yes sir and wonderful question from paul some wonderful discussion of this in our podcast which i mentioned please go back and watch it this man has a lot of insights into life extension and into techno-futurism and many many wonderful things to say about basic income so i would say that overwhelmingly the best approach for this country is the federal land dividend originated by the founder of this party zolton ispin and continued in in is a kind of tribute to him and also because it is a very sound notion continued in our future is due to pardon me future is new deal for america that's the ticket and in this podcast that i mentioned paul illan said imposing this question to all of us he described a basic income as a game changer and those people who take an austerity view of this are not looking at the the ways in which this would add many many trillions of dollars to our economy and more importantly vast human development and and a real quality of life steps by taking this bold step of supporting a middle-class basic income for all citizens age 18 to 63 the collapse of our middle class it's not just an accident it is a result of corporatist policies going back some decades that have been insinuated into our two-party system by men like charles coke the very kinds of policies that mr. shaggy i would tend to like to see continue these are things that have heard our middle class and had we not had this this shadow party in the form of the coke network i believe our country would look much more like modern germany not a perfect place but a place that does have a fairly fair way a fairer wages and the kinds of infrastructure to support a healthy middle class because here in the united states we have 55% of workers now working in artificially low wage service jobs and paying artificially high housing costs and this problem is only going to get worse in the near term in the face of ai and automation and it's why i've often described the futurist new deal for america's federal land dividend as a stop gap basic income might be a temporary measure but it would be a lifesaving and game-changing measure measure as as mr. illan said so it's what we want thank you kids and zaheys i'll thank you for my time yes we had a momentary interruption but i believe we heard the vast majority of your answer if you'd like to repeat your last sentence you may do so uh no no i believe i believe i was finished all right so we will add 20 seconds to your future seeking times and then we proceed to candid a check key candid a check key what do you consider the best approach to achieve a universal basic income and why is it the best approach well the universal basic income would replace certain other safety nets that we have in in the in society it would replace the unemployment insurance it would replace the the old age insurance program so the first thing to do would be to use those monies to for the universal basic income unfortunately those monies are trivial compared to even a thousand dollar a month per person bit a ubi so i think the first step would be to do a negative income tax situation where if you are paying less than if you are making less than 20,000 a year then you're around that you're you're pushed up to 20,000 a year or something with a negative income tax and that way the people who really need it don't have any more paperwork to file they already are filing income tax mostly the people who are absolutely in poverty all they have to do is file a 1040 ez and then you get at least the people who are at the bottom and need that most can get their their negative income tax and then as productivity increases in our GDP rises then we can work on expanding that negative income tax to higher and higher levels and there's no reason to take in taxes from somebody making a million dollars a year in a business and then send them back 20,000 that's just silly it's better just not to take the money in the first place and so i think that's the best way to achieve a universal basic Thank you candidate Chetky you spoke for two minutes so we will add 60 seconds to your future speaking times and now we proceed to candidate Taylor candidate Taylor what do you consider to be the best approach to achieve a universal basic income and why is it the best approach I have to agree with Mr Ben Zion on many of his points as we lose jobs to automation as people need retraining because they worked in sectors lost or changed due to technological advancements such as the energy sector or transportation a universal basic income will provide a safety net to protect the American workforce furthermore UBI allows individuals to pursue paths that were previously close to them such as careers in the arts for those reasons I propose a UBI of $2,000 per month per adult and $500 per child UBI isn't meant to replace income from employment permanently but to augment it and to provide a step ladder for those impacted by the changing economy and as a supplement for those who are underemployed or who are seeking to better themselves through academics creative or innovative pursuits so my opponents claim that UBI is too expensive but you can visit my website at taylor2020.vision to learn how affordable it really can be and that doesn't even include the economic growth created by UBI as poor and middle class Americans gain more buying power and will reinvest that in their communities all of this can be paid for by raising taxes on the richest 10% of Americans and by closing the loopholes that allow massive corporations such as Amazon to pay little or no taxes we cannot afford to continue in an economic system that only increases the divide between the super rich and the rest of America thank you candidate taylor we will add 70 seconds to your future speaking times thank you to all of our candidates for your answers on our universal basic income question now we proceed to question nine where we begin to venture into the realm of foreign policy Member Thomas James O'Carroll notes that Donald Trump recently announced that he would create a new branch of the military named the space force and Mr O'Carroll asks can one nation actively declare sole dominion of space with military force or should military deployment in space be an international endeavor and is it even necessary candidate benzion you have three minutes yes the United States or any other nation should not be asserting the kind of dominion that's described in this question in space based on the same legal principle as respecting the neutrality of international waters notions of this kind but as we know the United States has often thrown aside these protocols and behave quite aggressively on the world stage to this day and there are concerns here in the Trump administration I would say that on in terms of this aggression but I would say on certain measures he's not substantively worse in foreign policy aggression than the aggregate of his predecessors except perhaps in the trade war arena I do feel quite strongly about space initiatives particularly on this related subject of near-earth development I did a series of discussions and interviews with a Russian gentleman and I worked with his design team you can see those articles on the transhumanist party website and we work closely on a prospectus for a partial space elevator designed to use existing materials science and technologies to create an intermediary step towards a better development and industrialization of near-earth and this would lower the cost of fuel significantly and facilitate this moves to our outer atmosphere and the moon this near-earth industrialization holds a great deal of promise for many new industries and this automated design in this particular partial space elevator it's something that I suggest you look into there's a recent piece I can share the link in the comments that echoes many of these design ideas just in recent days I've seen a mainstream media piece that I've also been sharing quite a lot so we can be moving towards true space age civilization and in this context I spoke with John Carrick also yesterday in our interview some of you've seen that you might recall there's an awful lot that we would be doing by taking these bold moves to build out new markets in other areas so it's a good step to be taking a win-win for everyone we could even see steps towards other things that we want as technofuturists resulting from this I'll bank the remainder of my time thank you candidate Benzion we will add 32 seconds to your future speaking times we proceed to candidate Schachke what are your thoughts on the space force and whether it is even necessary well asking can is a matter of technical ability asking should is a matter of ethics can yes America can assert dominion over space if they wish we have the technical ability we have higher technical ability than anyone else and as anyone with any experience in war fighting with no having the high ground means it's very difficult to make a response to the person who has the high ground you have a lot harder time attacking high ground than being defending it now whether we should that's a completely different manner I think that the existing UN treaties on the non militarization of space are robust and I think that the United States is holding to those treaties that they have signed I don't think it is appropriate to militarize space I don't I as president I would not do it but as to whether it's necessary I think that we have a world that is the most peaceful that it ever has been and and it is getting better despite what the news says and even Russia and China and Pakistan and India the other nuclear nations are working out their differences without violence for the most part so I think that it is not necessary to have a large military presence in space but I do believe that it is appropriate for the United States military to have a defensive posture ready to deploy into orbit if necessary to defend the country I'm thank you candidate chat key we will add 25 seconds to your future speaking slots and now we proceed to candidate Taylor what are your thoughts on the space force and whether it is necessary space exploration and research are definitely necessary but I would be wary of any nation establishing military control of space especially if done without international agreement I would like to see more investment in space research and more international cooperation the resources and knowledge that will gain that will become available to us as we increase our reach into the cosmos will be virtually limitless the United States should be a leader in further developments but not in military capacity except where it's necessary to defend our investments and to protect those of our allies thank you candidate Taylor we will add 129 seconds to your future speaking times thank you to all candidates for answering question question Penn is also on foreign policy from Mr. Thomas James O'Carroll who observes that Donald Trump has become the first U.S. President to step across the South North Korean border say he is mending rifts while others say he is failing at keeping peace in specific regions of the world what would you do to improve international relations across the board with allies and previously classed adversaries candidate Benzion you have the floor for three minutes yes sir before I begin if you could take a moment and you don't have to answer now but tell me whether I have a debit or credit with you at this time in terms of remaining moments but yes I thank you Gennady for for that question and thank you Mr. Thomas Thomas O'Carroll for these numerous thought provoking questions the ways in which this President Trump might be mending rifts some of these rifts he's himself attended to agitate as much prior to mending but it does seem to break down along oddly partisan alliance so trans trans nationally he does seem to have a kind of strange soft spot for for right wing despots and and having rather unusual dealings with them sometimes but still whatever strange or even comical business is done there if it is done in the interest of maintaining peace on the world stage especially given the difficulty of this imperfect power politics relationship that the United States has we have this military industrial complex guilty of much excess and overreach and and U.S. imperialism there it's it's not an easy matter to try and unpack and so a person who is doing their due diligence to try and maintain a peace on the world stage I consider that to be something approaching in that positive it's a big part of the job also to be reading these intelligence briefings to understanding the mind of people working in state and working in these other departments and also I think it's important as we as techno futurists can be bringing a lot more to the table to stabilize these fundamental relations and these problems internationally I do believe are driven by economic concerns if you remove economics instability from the equation in these states as I believe we are doing over these decades since we have entered the network world and will increasingly be doing as you remove that economics instability in those states there is very little impetus for acting as rogue states and these kind of interventions these kinds of ways of being in the world it's something that we as techno singularitarians or people of this kind who believe in strong technical progress have the institutional understanding and insights into building so we can be helping achieve a greater piece on the world stage as a transhumanist I do believe that I'll bank the remainder of my time I'd like to have an assessment of my remaining time if possible Yes, thank you so I will add 32 seconds to your time from this segment and in total you now have a positive accumulation of time 15 seconds saved up so very just like this it's time to come back from some of the previous balances but do know that you now have some time savings now we proceed to candidate Chacky candidate Chacky you have three minutes to discuss this question of improving international relations across the board with both allies and previously classed adversaries it has been stated that either goods cross cross borders or armies do this is a truism so I would remove all barriers to goods crossing borders and I would clear out all sanctions clear out all foreign interventions in markets and let goods travel as freely as America can do I would encourage our business partners and the rest of the world to do the same so that free trade can reign the number of military bases and the ease of acting militarily that the United States has has led to uh shortsighted and poorly thought out operations throughout the world we are currently having active military operations I believe in like something like 45 countries it's insane I would bring the troops home I would sell foreign bases back to the countries that they are in and if they wish to have the material and the training to use that material I would offer them to them but I would bring our men home and if they don't want to buy the material I would bring the materials home if they wish to maintain a defensive treaty and if they are attacked we will have response forces the marines will be available but we will not have massive forces available to use and to empire build I would likewise disband most of our navy either selling it to the states or to other countries go to a two carrier group nation national fleet under the coast guard where it is a defensive fleet and then international relations will fall in place as we no longer have a posture of attack against the entire world and that I believe is the best way to improve international relations thank you candidate chat key we will add 15 seconds to your future speaking times and now we proceed to candidate Taylor what would you do to improve international relations with both allies and previously classed adversaries well first let me address what donald trump has been doing I think it's dangerous to lend credibility to dictators and despotic regimes by meeting them without without any preconditions the north korean government in particular is holding back its own people by preventing them from advancing in technology and in freedom two things we transhumanists hold dear at the same time that he befriends these despots Donald Trump makes decisions to alienate and push away our allies such as the impending trade war with germany he has failed in international relations despite his claims to the contrary and we are no safer today than when he took office I will strengthen our relationships with our allies in order to work with them for the advancement of all humanity to solve problems that threaten the whole world and to bring about peace around the globe if the answers to life extension and global climate change are not found in the united states they will most likely come from our allies from europe from australia from japan from israel and we need to strengthen our bonds with these nations in order for the benefit of all nations thank you thank you candidate taylor we will add 95 seconds to your future speaking slot now we thank all of our candidates for answering question 10 and we proceed to question 11 from member mike di verde who notes that in your first term as president of the united states you may only have one chance at a single signature issue what will be your main program that you spend your political capital in acting and what current federal departments and programs if any will you cut to fund your signature program candidate you have the floor for three minutes yes sir thank you for that question mike it's an important one and it's the thing i've alluded to before i think you can probably anticipate my answer all of you the future is new deal for america the number one initiative therein is a middle class basic income for every adult age 18 to 63 and this is what we can do we need to we need to propel as andrew yang also a basic income candidate says the real economy we need to allow people as matt taylor said to be starting the small businesses that they wanted that they have wanted to start to be doing other things that are not monetized but are still very valuable pro-social behaviors taking care of family and loved ones engaging in all manner of good things in the community right now these things are effectively disincentivized but we need to create a civilization that does this and in doing so we'll add many trillions of dollars to the marketplace we will not be losing out by creating this program and because this program is is funded through this federal land lease we will be able to fund a funded effectively on day one january 21st 2021 we will have these contracts in place with these many many many corporations and institutions to lease these lands these lands are held in great number here in the united states 85% of them are not national parks and so we can lease them out to carbon neutral companies and institutions that are in keeping with a specific design aesthetic they must return them as they receive them and in doing so we can generate $173 trillion over 10 years and that is enough to fund this initiative and fill in some gaps in other initiatives as well and we can do this and we will see great benefits to having done so and there is no doubt there I'll take a moment and talk about the other pillars of the future's new deal for America e-governance specifically an eye voting a blockchain secured voting allowed for in every state everyone has that option and of course using those additional trillions we will improve our public health service and we will build a public health service that is a longevity public health service that will be costing less that will be drawing less from the public coffers and doing more and we will do that by shifting as I have said away from this end of life care away from this triage to prevention and oversight of citizens using digitalization and personalized medicine this is these are the things that we can do in a Benzion presidency and it is what we will do in this position thank you thank you can Zion I will add one second to your future speaking times and now we proceed to candidate chat key candidate chat key if you only have a chance at one signature issue what would it be and what current federal departments and programs will you catch to find your signature issue I will not use the qualifier if any because I know that you will cut some of them but you have three minutes I think the signature issue would be privatizing the FDA that would be the single most effective means of furthering transhumanism and life extension for the United States as for departments to cut if I had the ability I would cut them all except the Coast Guard and other things that are specifically listed in the Constitution as president that would be my my vow I would have vowed to and taken an oath to abide by the Constitution so it would be my province to decide whether any particular program was constitutional or not and to implement it or not and that's all I have to say on that thank you candidate chat key we will add 116 seconds to your future speaking times and now we move on to candidate Taylor what would be your signature issue if you had to pick one and what current federal departments and programs if any would you cut to fund it while I dream about and plan to pursue my vision for healthcare reform and for universal basic income and we desperately need to tackle the threat of climate change I realize that these are dreams that might not come to fruition right away because of the gridlock in Washington therefore I would first direct my administration to develop a plan to invest in technological infrastructure I've seen firsthand the difficulties that students who do not have internet access at home struggle with they never catch up with their peer to do rural communities suffer because the infrastructure the coverage just isn't there telephone companies boast about covering over 90% of Americans for most of those companies I'm in that 10% in the dead zone and those that do provide coverage have regional monopolies because they are the only companies in the area this further divides America as the urban centers have greater access to education to communication and to business there just isn't the economic incentive to expand coverage in rural and poorer areas but in the 21st century internet access is becoming a necessity and a basic human right I would find ways to incentivize companies to invest in expansion into uncovered areas and where necessary develop public infrastructure to bring access to all American communities all of which can be paid for by the reduction of military spending and the increase in corporate taxes thank you candidate Taylor we will add 75 seconds to your future speaking times and that concludes the responses to question 11 we proceed now to question 12 from Thomas James O'Carroll who is curious regarding how would you approach the US federal and allocate funds among the various functions of government would you advocate growing or reducing federal spending overall candidate Benzion you have three minutes yes an excellent question another great question from Thomas O'Carroll there there are many concerns with the US federal budget and all of all of these matters as I have mentioned the future is new deal it does describe in this basic income a kind of growth but it is a kind of growth that is funded through novel means and so that it does not run the risk of hyperinflation we've heard some concerns from people in the pre-show and in all of these forums about concerns of this kind to stabilizing our economy but we know that there was quantitative easing to the tune of many trillions of dollars in the wake of the 2009 financial crisis that did not just significantly destabilize markets in the way that people of this kind would have predicted it's a different kind of beast that we have this fintech run economy and there is always going to be some flexibility there and but these concerns they might arise to a higher degree in the to a higher degree in the basic incomes described by candidate Haywire but because the federal land dividend is funded through this novel revenue stream that we described we don't have to worry about this quite so much in this context there's there's so many other kinds of things that we could be talking about in terms of programs that we want to build in the world of e-governance these programs will also tend to be paying for themselves in short order an i-voting system we already have the digital infrastructure and and the devices for people for almost everyone to be doing this many other e-services it is much cheaper to provide these services as e-services rather than through bricks and mortal bricks and mortar outlets at the municipal and state level so these are these are good problems to be having in term for techno-futurists again all of these things in the constellation of digitalization we can be talking about things that will in short order be costing pennies on the dollar and that is will allow us to be doing more with less the basic a basic concept also for for futurists in the concept of ephemeralization popularized by Buckminster Fuller to be able to do more and more with less and less until ultimately you are able to do everything with nothing and i do believe that we are well on track to be doing that and people who would tend to describe worst-case scenarios the sky is falling i think that they are being a little bit deceptive they may not be techno-singulitarians in the in the fullest sense of the word but thank you you're an idiot anyway um you can thank you for your remarks and you were right on time we will proceed to candidate chat key how would you approach the U.S. federal budget allocate funds among the various functions of government and would you advocate growing for reducing federal spending overall well the U.S. Transhumanist party platform calls for the abolition of the income tax that is one point six trillion dollars in federal funds that would not be collected that is troublesome that means that we have to immediately cut the federal government to about one fifth its size in order just to be working on a even keel with no additional programs so that is a radical slash and burn idea if we add in a U.S. UBI and we don't have some additional funding then we are in serious financial trouble now I agree that if the there are government assets that those should be immediately used to the fullest extent but I think the existing Bureau of Land Management leasing programs are showing very little in income and so I don't see how adding additional land to that program would add anything to the budget that would make up that huge shortfall so the federal government things that must be done according to the Constitution are the Coast Guard the Patent Office the U.S. Postal Service very little else the ability to raise an army I think should be kept I believe that the Army Navy and Marines should all be brought down to a cadre level bringing through a significant number of troops every two years for training but then immediately discharging them back into the civilian population to act as part of the militia and I believe that by doing this we can significantly downsize the government to the point where we can abolish the income tax and still have a government that functions and not destroy the country with massive inflation government money printing like they're doing in Venezuela so I believe that that's about the only thing that we can do in order to maintain the U.S. transhumanist party platform Thank you Candida Chetky we will add seven seconds to your future speaking times and now we proceed to Candida Taylor how would you approach the U.S. federal budget and allocate funds among the various functions of government and would you advocate growing or reducing federal spending overall the the growing federal deficit is a real issue and I think that needs further consideration on how to bring that amount down I'm of the belief that we should reduce the deficit that doesn't necessarily mean reducing spending but we need to find new ways of increasing the governmental income I must admit that I need to look further into Mr. Benzion's federal land dividend plan and and learn more about that perhaps that is a direction to to head but as I've explained already my budget would include a universal basic income for all Americans expansion of Medicare to include a public option and increased investment in the NIH I'd also like to invest in technological infrastructure as I just discussed and increase our investment in education these are major costs but we can pay for them by reducing military spending also by increasing taxes on the top 10% of income earners in America and by closing the corporate tax loopholes overall by taxing the super rich and massive corporations we can achieve our lofty goals while still reducing that budget deficit as we move into the future I think that we should be investing more into extending human life than ending it that we should be putting more into bioengineering than into bullets and more into promoting education than into propping up giant corporations thank you candidate Taylor we will add 62 seconds to your future speaking times and before we proceed to question 13 I will note that we are now at the stage where there will be no further positive time accumulation because for question 13 each candidate will have an additional two minutes but consider essentially budgeting your time because you will need to allocate that time between that question and then your subsequent open remarks or closing remarks however you would wish to construe those so I will give you an understanding of where you stand in terms of time including the 120 seconds that would be added for question 13 candidate Benzai and you would have 136 seconds candidate Shatki you would have 718 seconds and candidate Taylor you would have 106 seconds so be mindful of that time and as I stated we will go through the rotation until each candidate either exhausts his time or essentially yields the remainder of his time so question 13 comes from DeNora Delphine our director of admissions and public relations who asks what are the transhumanist movements and the US transhumanist parties greatest challenges preventing growth so focus your answers on both the transhumanist movement generally and the US transhumanist party in particular candidate Benzai you have before yes can you hear me yes yes this is an interesting question and not an easy one to answer as I've mentioned in other discussions one of my campaign promises is that I will grow this organization to 10,000 members by 2022 and be growing this organization and building this organization in other ways besides and there's some impediments to this but it's a good work that we can do in raising awareness for life extension and other positive techno-optimist outcomes and some people look at the diversity of political opinions in this organization and they might describe it as something that is preventing growth I don't feel that way I think that we have to have this kind of robust discussion that we're seeing on this panel and I welcome it we should be open to accommodating all political philosophies and as I mentioned already the future's new deal was devised as a sort of concession to this reality and I think that as a candidate for president for the United States Transhumanist Party I will be able to continue to be doing outreach to diverse organizations and professional individuals through the podcast and other media and overcoming these hurdles to growth we've been able to do an awful lot in this short time with raising awareness for these oh so important issues particularly a life extension and I do feel that that is the good work that we can be doing in this community the future's new deal for America it is the best way forward for this organization be aware the radical life extension is closer than you think so plan accordingly I'll bank the remainder of my time thank you thank you candidate Benzion so you spoke for 116 seconds which will leave you 20 seconds for concluding remarks when it is time and now we proceed to candidate Chaki what are your thoughts on the transhumanist movements and transhumanist parties greatest challenges that are preventing growth the transhumanist movement is unknown it's a fringe group that's basically been very clickish and its activities and barely making us a blip on the world stage so I think the first thing is general advertising campaign to let the people of the world know that transhumanism is a thing and is an actual sane concept that's not just something bandied about by rich people taking stem cell treatments in Porta Vallarta so I think that that basic level of human life all right candidate Chaki you spoke for 84 seconds and now we proceed to candidate Taylor what are your thoughts on this question of the transhumanist movements and the US transhumanist parties greatest challenges preventing growth well um recent controversies on the use of the trans of the term transhumanism aside the transhumanist party faces an uphill battle against public ignorance and and even fear fear of technology fear of the future and fear of the unknown if we choose candidates that won't be taken seriously by the American public or if we continue to only focus on posing lofty philosophical thought problems rather than solving real world problems we won't break through into the greater collective consciousness in a positive way transhumanism needs strong positive branding and a collection of ambassadors to spread the message about how the ideals of the movement represent a bright future for the entire world and I encourage the members of the US transhumanist party to to think about how they can be those ambassadors to the greater community I think this is our chance for the transhumanist party to break out into the public eye and into traditional and new media outlets I think this is this is the dawning of a new era for transhumanism and I encourage the membership of the US transhumanist party to carefully consider and carefully choose the face of the US TP to best promote the image of transhumanism thank you Thank you candidate Taylor you spoke for 103 seconds so now we proceed to the open forum stage of the debate first we have candidate Benzion who has 20 seconds remaining so these would be your concluding remarks but what can you tell our viewers in 20 seconds yes I could I could tell you simply this vote for me Benzion 2020 in the upcoming primary and support the futurist new deal for America the most well thought out of these platforms we're doing the good work that these other candidates haven't had the time to do perhaps and we have a by far the best platform that please vote for Benzion 2020 in this primary thank you thank you candidate Benzion we appreciate your participation in this debate and we certainly encourage all of our viewers to look into the futurist new deal podcast you have done some tremendous work with your interviews with various transhumanist and non-transhumanist but nonetheless important thinkers so most definitely we greatly appreciate your running in this race and all of your insights in the debate today now we still have candidates Shackie and Taylor with significant amounts of time accumulated candidate Shackie you have 634 seconds and candidate Taylor you have 903 seconds so we can essentially rotate between the two of you and you can offer any remarks you wish on candidates that were covered in this debate or your policy suggestions that you feel have not sufficiently been covered yet you may respond to what other candidates have stated you may respond to one another but we will essentially proceed between the two of you each of you will still have the floor completely while you're speaking but it is up to you what you will make of this opportunity so candidate Shackie you have the floor thank you fellow members of the transhumanist party I I must admit that I did not know about your party until June and since then I've tried to be active and getting to know the party and the people in it and getting to understand your goals and I wholeheartedly embraced the party as completely in line with my long-standing beliefs as a futurist as a science fiction author as a science fiction fan and I have focused my life on doing what I can in order to improve the situation for the world and in order to bring about the future that I think humanity can reach and I think that the United States is the hotbed of innovation and I think freedom is the way to make that innovation happen and I think anyone telling you uh oh yes we can do this we can give you this and this and this and this who doesn't have a grasp of the scale of the problem from the get go is a snake oil salesman and you shouldn't trust them any further than you can throw them and with that I'll let Mr. Taylor have some remarks Thank you candidate Shacky you spoke for 113 seconds and now we proceed to candidate Taylor you have the floor the um the benefits of not being as long-winded as Mr. Benzion that we have all this time to speak and and push forward our our ideas and agenda um America stands on the precipice of a new age and we can either embrace the change and soar into a brighter future or we can continue on the path we are on towards despair our similarities within transhumanism and our similarities to the greater public should unite us more than our differences divide us and we can find common ground in the pursuit of the advancement and improvement of human life through technology science and medicine my new vision will show the way towards the future we need and we can achieve it by bringing our ideas to a greater audience this is our opportunity to digest that I encourage our audience here to read all about my platform at Taylor2020.vision or on my Facebook page at fb.me slash Taylor for America and I'd like to encourage anyone watching who isn't yet a member of the USTP but who liked what they heard tonight from any of the candidates to join the USTP at transhumanist-party.org slash membership by Saturday so that they can vote on the in the party primary furthermore I'd like to thank Genotti again for moderating this debate for God I'd like to thank Steele for providing the US transhumanist party with this great platform to spread the good word and I'd like to thank my fellow candidates for a well-reasoned and civil debate thank you thank you Mr. Taylor you spoke for 124 seconds and I greatly appreciate your good words and your remarks concerning membership registration once again that link is transhumanist-party membership so anyone watching this who isn't a member yet please go to the US transhumanist party website and register for free membership so now we come again to candidate Schatke you still have 521 seconds if you choose to use them to have the floor thank you I think we have seen a political ploy by Ben Zion in this debate in which he didn't actually answer the first couple of questions but just used it to put forth his platform Futurist New Deal snake oil again and again and so that's you know he got his licks in early figuring that people wouldn't watch the entire stream he's counting on stupidity I am not going to insult people who are futurists by using misusing the time and not answering questions I think that people who are in the transhumanist party have come here because they thought about the future I think we have differences in how we approach it I think a lot of people have been taken in by luxury techno communism and that's a dangerous place to be there's a lot of especially youth who have been sold snake oil their entire lives because they have never dealt with anybody in the private sector except the companies who are charging them for the things they want and they don't understand where wealth comes from and where things actually happen government has no money government only has things it has taken from its people it does not make a pie bigger to take it take half the piece from one person and give it to another or give slivers of it to two other people and keep a sliver of it yourself that does not make a nation wealthier what makes a nation wealthier is baking another pie and giving that to the other people and letting those people have pieces of pie that nobody else had before that that is why America grew by leaps and bounds in the 19th century we kept expanding our pie we expanded in the 19th century from 13 colonies across the entirety of a continent I believe America can expand from one continent across the entirety of a solar system and I believe that only the futurist party of the transhumanist party can manage that and can lead America and the world to that so I think that's all I need to say right now thank you candidate Shacky you spoke for 200 in 13 seconds to candidate Taylor who still has 779 seconds remaining candidate Taylor you may begin I really thought since talking is my living in a lot of ways that I'd be I'd be the one running out of time but I just wanted to make a little remark Mr. Shacky says that taking away some of the pie from one person and giving it to another does not make the pie bigger that's true but we have a system right now in which a few individuals have taken all of the pie and it's important that we let that pie be spread out among the whole party the whole group that has gathered yeah it is evil I think I think when we take a look at the hoarding of wealth among the super rich among corporations that pay essentially no taxes we find that we can indeed spread that around and I think it's important as we move into a a futurist economy one that is driven by automation and driven by advances that actually take away the jobs of many americans myself included I think think education is going the way of being a a service provided mostly online and well I don't think that's necessarily the direction it should take I think that's the direction it is taking and perhaps soon enough will be taken by AI even computer programming thought to be one of the bastions of computers will never be able to program themselves is becoming more and more automated so as these jobs get taken away if we don't have a way of distributing that wealth then people are going to be in dire straits and really as we advance in technology and people need to work less and less we should be getting more and more freedom and more and more liberty and more and more leisure time and time to pursue creative endeavors or innovation the parts that are part and parcel to human nature right now it's AI is very good at certain things while humans are good at creativity and good at innovating and good at thinking outside the box and and the more we can open up opportunities for people to do just that the better and I think that the universal basic income for instance will do just that and I would inform Mr. Shakti that if if the constitution and in its rawest form is so important to them that perhaps you should look into the constitution party thank you Mr. Taylor you spoke for 225 seconds so now we return again to Candidate Shakti who has 308 seconds remaining if he wishes to use them Candidate Shakti you have before thank you um I think at this point the thing that needs to be said is we are transhumanists we believe that humanity can rise above the limits of flesh and blood that we can expand the realm of mind past just humans born of woman into humans born of silicon into humans born of ape or dolphin or elephant or whatever other animal that can be brought to full sentience I think that we can expand the place of intelligence in the universe beyond the limits that we have today and that we can bring humanity and sapiens to the universe not only to our solar system but the technology exists today to make an interstellar voyage and it's not going to happen overnight it won't be an 80-year trip it won't it will be a hundreds of years trip if we did it with today's technology but I think that it's time humanity left the cradle that humanity left the nursery and that we accept that humanity is not limited to man born of women and those ideals of treating all sentience properly of bringing as much thought into the universe as possible and letting it express itself as freely as possible as long as it doesn't interfere with other sentience I believe that those are the ideals that this party is striving for and I think everybody in this party is trying hard to to fulfill those ideals I do not think benzion is an evil man bent on world domination I don't think anyone in this party is I don't think anyone in the transhumanist movement is and so whenever the party selects a a presidential candidate I will work with what I have available to make that presidential candidate successful and I hope that all the other presidential candidates and all the other members of the party agree with that sentiment that this is the place where people are expanding the very definition of people and making those people as effective for as long as possible as they can be and I thank you for taking the time to listen to my thoughts on the matter and I bid you all peace and joy as you go about your days thank you came in a chat key you spoke for four minutes and four seconds so that then means that if you do choose to speak further you will have 64 seconds to do so but in the meantime we proceed to candidate taylor can taylor you have the floor thank you I think Mr. Shack he said something very important there and and it may be the point on which we agree the most which is that we as humans can rise above our base natures and that's what transhumanism is about at its core and so I appreciate this forum I appreciate the chance to spread my view my vision for transhumanism and for the nation and thank you all once again thank you candidate taylor you spoke for 38 seconds and now I will ask candidate checkie do you wish to utilize any of your remaining 64 seconds I think we're pretty much done here I think we've covered the ground and it's time to put this to bed peace and joy and get some sleep so thank you and I saw agreement from candidate taylor we will conclude tonight's debate thank you to candidates benzion shackie and taylor for your spirited participation we discussed many areas of policy we were able to discuss areas of disagreement civilly we were able to focus also on what unites us as transhumanists I am pleased to have all three of you in this race despite the technical difficulties we made this a good debate we made this a debate that our audience enjoyed we had as many viewers on the second live stream as on the first for those of you who are curious as to what happened to interfere with the first live stream it seems that some technician tripped over a cable that connected to steel archers router it was essentially I believe a cleanup person who did this so quite an unexpected incident but a non-repeatable incident thankfully and we appreciate everyone for bearing with us please keep in mind you haven't people want to end your internet connect to all of their medical devices sadly we still have quite a way to go to ensure the robustness of our technological infrastructure in order to implement many of the transhumanist projects so anyone who has ideas about how to improve that we are definitely quite eager to hear them but for those of you who haven't registered yet for free membership in the U.S. Transhumanist Party once again remind you register by September 21st to be eligible to vote in our electronic ranked preference primary if you liked what you heard today from any of the candidates you don't have to vote for just one you can rank order the candidates you can rank order all of the candidates so if you like something from multiple candidates you would be able to display that reference as well so thank you very much all viewers thank you to all of our candidates thank you to Steel Archer for your excellent work behind the scenes in co-hosting this debate thank you to Levin Jules once again for your pre-debate commentary we hope you stick around for the post-debate show as well and I bid you all good night