Here’s my new article for Aporia magazine, the final futurist story in my 4-part series for them!

Written by Zoltan Istvan.

I met my wife on Match.com 15 years ago. She didn’t have a picture on her profile, but she had written a strong description of herself. It was enough to warrant a first date, and we got married a year later.

But what if ordinary dating sites allowed users to see their potential date naked using advanced AI that could “virtually undress” that person? Let’s take it a step further. What if they gave users the option to have virtual sex with their potential date using deepfake technology, before they ever met them in person? Some of this technology is already here. And it’s prompting a lot of thorny questions – not just for dating sites but for anyone who uses the web.

Deepfakes are synthetic media created by deep learning algorithms (a form of artificial intelligence). These videos, images and audio recordings depict faces, voices or entire personas that are often indistinguishable from the real thing. They have raised concerns due to their potential to deceive and manipulate. While originally used to create humorous or satirical content, they will increasingly be misused to spread fake news and to commit fraud or blackmail. Of particular concern is how they might affect personal relationships.

I’m excited to share my new opinion article for Newsweek. It advocates for transforming America from a military-industrial complex into a science-industrial complex! Give it a read!

America spends 45 percent of its discretionary federal spending on defense and wars, while around us, the world burns in ways that have nothing to do with fighting or the military. Global warming has escalated into an enormous crisis. A fifth of everyone we know will die from heart disease. And an opioid crisis is reducing the average lifespans of Americans for the first time in decades. There’s plenty of tragedy, fear, and hardship all around us, but it has nothing to do with the need to make more bombs. It does, however, have to do with science.

It seems obvious America should do something different than spend so much of its tax dollars on defense. We should consider halving that money, and directing it to science, transforming America from a military-industrial complex into a science-industrial complex. Despite science and technological progress being broadly responsible for raising the standard of living around the world over the last 50 years, America spends only 3 percent of its GDP ($205 billion) on science and medical research across the federal government. Notably, this is dramatically less than the $877 billion the U.S. will spend on defense this year.

The famous designation of the term military-industrial complex comes from former President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address, where he warned America and its economy could descend into being a conflict-driven nation. Over 60 years after his speech, we have become just that. A Brown University study found that since 2001, the U.S. has spent $5.9 trillion on wars in the Middle East and Asia. For contrast, the 2023 budget for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a paltry $49 billion.

America and its military-industrial complex—including the Pentagon, CIA, foreign military services, Homeland Security, nuclear program, and many other U.S. Defense tentacles—promises to spread democracy and keep the world safe. However, a far more common enemy than a national security incident is getting cancer from the sun, being diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, and dying in a car accident. Given enough money and time for research and experimentation, science stands a good chance at fixing nearly anything, including all of the issues above.

Here’s my new Opinion essay at Newsweek. It’s about the need to use our nation’s massive natural resources to pay for a bipartisan tax free universal basic income, called the Federal Land Dividend. I hope you will read and share it!

In 2018, I began lecturing about the Federal Land Dividend, a bipartisan tax-free Universal Basic Income (UBI) based on monetizing the 640 million acres of mostly unused federally owned land. Due to the lasting effects of the coronavirus pandemic, which include a struggling U.S. economy, there is increasing interest in implementing basic income plans. The Federal Land Dividend is the only method that is both bipartisan and tax free.

An estimated 50 percent of the 11 most western states are mostly empty land that belong to the government. Estimates say this land and its resources are worth approximately $100 to $200 trillion. If we divide the middle— $150 trillion —by America’s population of 333 million, every person would have approximately $450,000 in equity. That’s much higher than the median net worth in America of $122,000.

The Federal Land Dividend aims to lease out land and natural resources to big business that agree, in exchange, to pay a monthly income to all Americans. It’s estimated that if just 60 percent of America’s unused federal land was leased out at fair rates, a $1,000 monthly check could be sent to all Americans—regardless of age—for decades if not centuries. Because land and raw materials often move in tandem with inflation, payouts could increase with inflation. Furthermore, this plan does not touch any national parks whatsoever. Much of this land is in places that few humans ever visit or see.

Some conservatives support the Federal Land Dividend idea because it will boost big business while providing an economic stimulus to all Americans. Some liberals also support the idea because it will dramatically help end poverty. Even some libertarians like the idea because it returns the value of federal land to the people, instead of the government hoarding and controlling it.

I’m excited to share my latest article with Aporia Magazine, where I’m writing a series of stories on transhumanism. My latest article, on AI and religion, is now out.

Written by Zoltan Istvan.

A consensus of 350 top AI experts believes that by 2060 engineers could create a superintelligence to rival the human mind. This machine intelligence might create complex symphonies, direct blockbuster movies and run market-beating companies. But would it be sophisticated enough to understand spirituality, practice a religion or commune with a higher power?

In conferences and forums around the world, theologians and scientists are trying to answer these questions. Some are even debating whether the superintelligence should be converted to a specific religious perspective when it arrives – and then maybe even saved.

Wired Magazine’s executive founding editor Kevin Kelly once said, “The creator made us as beings with free will and consciousness – we are going to do the same thing. We are going to make beings with free will and consciousness, because we are in the image of the creator.”

Here’s my latest opinion article, just published at Merion West. It’s about AI and the environment! Give it a read!

“With artificial general intelligence (AGI) likely just decades away, there is an urgent need to consider the extent of environmental harm we are causing. AGI will likely question if humans are good stewards of the planet and quickly come to the conclusion that we are not.”

Many artificial intelligence (AI) scientists believe that artificial general intelligence (AGI)—intelligence on par with humans—will be achieved within 20 years. If this happens, what will AI think of people?

Answers to this question range widely, from AI being grateful to its creators to it barely even noticing us to it wanting to be our equals. However one theory in ethics increasingly being considered is that AI will be angry with us because of the environmental harm humans have caused to the planet and to other species.

Skeptics counter that AGI will not care about the environment because it is a machine, with little need for nature. Despite this, I believe that AGI will not only want Earth to thrive but also to be protected from those who might destroy it—such as humans. AGI, similar to any intelligent person, would prefer a stable, biodiverse planet filled with renewable resources available to it over an ecological wasteland.

My Sony Music interview is now out. 40 min of #transhumanism adventures, AI, Transhumanist Bill of Rights, & politics. A professional team of producers and host Katherine Rowland put this together! It’s really fun and unique!

In 2015, journalist Zoltan Istvan became the first person to run for president on a transhumanist platform. His campaign centered a right to unlimited life for all humans…as well as cyborgs and robots. Zoltan Istvan believes that how people treat AI will become the civil rights battle of our time. And that he would be the right leader to help guide America through the singularity.

That is, of course, until the AI revolution actually began.

A Sony Music Entertainment production.

Find more great podcasts from Sony Music Entertainment at sonymusic.com/podcasts and follow us @sonypodcasts

In my new Newsweek Op-Ed, I tackle a primary issue many people have with trying to stop aging and death via science. Hopefully this philosophical argument will allow more resources & support into the life extension field:

Philosophers often say if humans didn’t die, we’d be bored out of our minds. This idea, called temporal scarcity, argues the finitude of death is what makes life worth living. Transhumanists, whose most urgent goal is to use science to overcome biological death, emphatically disagree.

For decades, the question of temporal scarcity has been debated and analyzed in essays and books. But an original idea transhumanists are putting forth is reinvigorating the debate. It doesn’t discount temporal scarcity in biological humans; it discounts it in what humans will likely become in the future—cyborgs and digitized consciousnesses.

The traditional temporal scarcity argument against immortality imagines the human being remaining biologically the same as it has for tens of thousands of years. Yet the human race is already augmenting the human body with radical technology. Globally, over 200,000 people already have brain implants, and Silicon Valley companies like Elon Musk’s Neuralink are working on trying to get millions of us to become cyborgs.

A growing number of experts even believe by the end of the century, humans will likely have the ability to upload the brain and its consciousness into a computer. In the process, digitized people will overcome biological death and engage in far more complex ways of being, including grand new designs of consciousness and selfhood.

Here’s my new article for Aporia Magazine. A lot of wild ideas in it. Give it a read:

Regardless of the ethics and whether the science can even one day be worked out for Quantum Archaeology, the philosophical dilemma it presents to Pascal’s Wager is glaring. If humans really could eradicate the essence of death as we know it—including even the ability to ever permanently die—Pascal’s Wager becomes unworkable. Frankly, so does my Transhumanist Wager. After all, why should I dedicate my life and energy to living indefinitely through science when, by the next century, technology could bring me back exactly as I was—or even as an improved version of myself?

Outside of philosophical discourse, billions of dollars are pouring into the anti-aging and technology fields—much of it from Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area where I live. Everyone from entrepreneurs like Mark Zuckerburg to nonprofits like XPRIZE to giants like Google is spending money on ways to try to end all diseases and overcome death. Bank of America recently reported that they expect the extreme longevity field to be worth over $600 billion dollars by 2025.

Technology research spending for computers, microprocessors, and information technology is even bigger: $4.3 trillion dollars is estimated to have been spent worldwide in 2019. This amount includes research into quantum computing, which is hoped to eventually make computers hundreds—maybe thousands—of times faster over the next 50 years.

Despite the advancements of the 21st Century, the science to overcome biological death is not even close to being ready, if ever. Over 100,000 people still die a day, and in some countries like America, life expectancy has actually started going slightly backward. However, like other black swans of innovation in history—such as the internet, combustion engine, and penicillin—we shouldn’t rule out that new inventions may make humans live dramatically longer and maybe even as long as they like. As our species reaches for the heavens with its growing scientific armory, Pascal’s Wager is going to be challenged. It just might need an upgrade.

I have important news on the 6th anniversary of the death of my father, Steven Gyurko. The award winning feature documentary on my life IMMORTALITY OR BUST has just had its international release! You can watch it for free on Plex TV anywhere in the world. The film features my US presidential campaign fighting for life extension and driving the Immortality Bus as my father is dying. Congrats to director Daniel Sollinger!

Immortality or Bust follows Zoltan Istvan’s Transhumanist Party presidential campaign.

My latest Opinion piece:

I possibly cheated on my wife once. Alone in a room, a young woman reached out her hands and seductively groped mine, inviting me to engage and embrace her. I went with it.

Twenty seconds later, I pulled back and ripped off my virtual reality gear. Around me, dozens of tech conference goers were waiting in line to try the same computer program an exhibitor was hosting. I warned colleagues in line this was no game. It created real emotions and challenged norms of partnership and sexuality. But does it really? And who benefits from this?

Around the world, a minor sexual revolution is occurring. It’s not so much about people stepping outside their moral boundaries as much as it is about new technology. Virtual reality haptic suits, sexbots, and even implanted sexual devices—some controlled from around the world by strangers—are increasingly becoming used. Often called digisexuality, some people—especially those who find it awkward to fit into traditional sexual roles—are finding newfound relationships and more meaningful sex.

As with much new technology, problems abound. Psychologists warns that technology—especially interactive tech—is making humans more distant to the real world. Naysayers of the burgeoning techno-sex industry say this type of intimacy is not the real thing, and that it’s little different than a Pavlovian trick. But studies show the brain barely knows the difference from arousal via pornography versus being sexually active with a real person. If we take that one step further and engage with people in immersive virtual reality, our brain appears to know even less of the difference.