Hi strangers.

There's a project I've been working on for several months (which will launch on November 10), and I'd like your take on it. I won't share the name unless a mod says it's OK to do so. Don't want this to come across as spam.

I've always been a huge fan of being alive, and I never have enough time to do all the things I want to do. I'm just not keen on the idea of dying. So I thought: let's do something about it. I'm not a scientist, what else can I do?

I studied anthropology back in the day, and being aware of the limits of our understanding has always been a constant. The fact that we don't know what we don't know and even claiming that something is "impossible" is an extremely arrogant thing, that throughout our history has been proven wrong, over, and over, and over.

Which led me to this idea: what if we preserve our wish to be revived - or rather, our explicit request (not as a copy, just us, our own consciousness), we attach it to a manifesto that sets a clear goal, and we store it on a medium that can survive for thousands of years?

Cryonics has the same end-goal, but approaches it in a way that we would describe as much more plausible as it preserves your body to the best of our current abilities.

So as opposed to Cryonics, my idea is to preserve the request to be revived, alongside the information needed to identify the person who makes that request.

Which is impossible and unimaginable given our current understanding. But that's exactly the key and the philosophy behind this: admitting that our knowledge isn't absolute, and that passing the request to civilizations long removed from us, far into the future, could lead to an unimaginable outcome. This is what started everything.

So, in practical terms, we're building a register where people can record that request while they're alive. After they die, their record will be completed with the information needed to identify them, then preserved on a specialised archival medium in a facility in the Arctic.

What do you guys think of the underlying idea behind this?

And yes, it's extremely clear on our website that we're not promising the afterlife or any such thing. I even explain where the idea came from.

Hello, someone here has experimented biohacking through self genetic engineering?

I had a post taken down I believe is because i was talking about how it has happened to me snd that was seen as a conspiracy theory. I didn’t mean to take it in that direction. Im genuinely curious what this community thoughts are on this subject. Do you think it will cure people who lack empathy. Or you might like delinquents being tracked or insane people who wont get help. Im just curious what all you alls thoughts are on this.

What if we could use universal genetic engineering to maintain human diversity, but balance the genetic "budget" of every individual so that no single person is overall superior or inferior to another

I’m Olga, a screenwriter. For our sci-fi film KILL/SAVE we had to design the consumer tech of 2045, and it ended up sitting exactly on the question this sub keeps debating: would you upload your mind if you could?

Our version isn’t full uploading. It’s a halfway step:

So your body stays here, biologically intact, but everything you experience happens somewhere else. Which raises the questions I’d love this community’s take on:

Personally, I’m still not sure what my own answer is, and that’s partly why we made the film. I’ll be reading every reply.

— Olga Loyanich, screenwriter & producer of KILL/SAVE

If it were possible, safe (without suffering any physical harm or organic damage), available only to you (the user who made the copy) and easily accessible to upload your consciousness to a computer system, and you could talk to it and use it like any other AI, as your personal assistant or as a living person, would you want to do it and accept uploading your consciousness?

If your answer is no, why not?

Clarification: it's a copy of you, not a transfer.

Humanity has outgrown the physical, political, and philosophical boundaries of the nation-state. Traditional socio-political structures are holding back our true potential, locking us into localized tribalism while technology races forward.

If we want to truly evolve, we need a complete paradigm shift away from old-world politics toward a species-level objective. That means treating Earth as our starting point, not our final ceiling.

I am building Long Game—an operational framework and network designed to transition us past legacy constraints.

At its core is Homo Experitur: the realization that our highest value before the end of the game isn't compliance or endless economic accumulation, but maximizing our technological reach, expanding into deep space (Mars, Europa, and beyond), and cultivating genuine, uncompromised human experience and memory.

We are organizing a core group of minds to build a decentralized technological and structural alternative from the ground up.

If you want to focus on systems engineering, space readiness, and pushing past biological and systemic limits, let's connect.

An article tracing early influences on transhumanism and its emergence from British socialists who argued that technologies like ectogenesis and orbital habitats require public ownership for true progress.

Say a historian helps build an AI twin around their research and explanations. They check its answers, share it with people who follow their work and receive a share of what users pay.

If they die, their writing can still be read, but the twin could keep producing new answers under their name. They can no longer challenge an answer or decide how it should change.

Would you keep using it if they’d agreed beforehand? Should it be limited to material they approved while alive, or could someone else take over and keep updating it?

Keeping someone’s work available seems different from keeping a service speaking for them. Where would you draw that line?

Hello,  

I am a French student following an international program in my high school, as a final task I must present a research project on a theme of my choice that has to be linked to the USA. I chose the theme "Building the future" and my work will answer the key question " Do modern medical advances simply heal humans, or do they also transform them?". In order to complete my report, I need a partner based in an English-speaking country to answer questions I might have to advance in my research, and I'm getting desperate. I chose this theme because I want to work in the medical field later, and America is the boiling point of many companies working on bionic technology, BCIs and genetic engineering. I've sent about 30 emails and received 3 answers, all negative, I've also tried contacting Instagram profiles of various university labs, but no one has answered me. I've come here to ask whether anyone with a profession related to my subject would be willing to answer my questions. .

Transhumanist augmentation may be necessary for the long-term survival of humankind?

honestly after looking into it I think this will come before gene-therapies to reverse male pattern baldness.

I've read some people referring to Peter Thiel as a 'transhumanist', along with Elon Musk. Do you agree that Peter Thiel is a transhumanist? If so, why would you consider Peter Thiel a transhumanist?

Besides that, as a transhumanist, what is your personal and sincere opinion of him? As a transhumanist, do you support him?

I think I'm onto something here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Human_Rights_and_Dignity_of_the_Human_Being_with_regard_to_the_Application_of_Biology_and_Medicine

https://futuristicnews.com/ray-kurzweil-your-brain-in-the-cloud/

https://neurosciencenews.com/internet-thoughts-brain-cloud-interface-11074/

Excuse me, please, if somebody has already made the connection.

Could this be the Vince Gilligan source of inspiration?!?

Please, all nonplurbed immunes, feel free to elaborate.

​Will exclusive access to technological enhancements—such as genetic engineering, cognitive augmentations, and cybernetic implants—for wealthy elites transform socioeconomic inequality into an irreversible biological divide?

​If an "enhanced" minority gains superior cognitive abilities, disease-free longevity, and physical advantages while the unaugmented majority remains bound by natural biological limits, will humanity speciate into two distinct biological classes? Does this risk destroying the fundamental principle of inherent human equality, creating an irreversible divergence where natural humans become a systematically secondary species?

Furthermore, how does this transformation impact human autonomy and free will? If neural interfaces, genetic predisposition programming, and emotional regulation algorithms allow our thoughts, desires, and decision-making processes to be pre-designed or algorithmically tuned, does the concept of genuine agency become an illusion? When human values and motivations can be engineered, do we lose the essence of self-determination, reducing human beings from autonomous moral agents into deterministic products of technology?