on wardrobe choices.

Looks like he is mostly annoyed because HE is inconvenienced, too.

I have flown so much on business that I consider security checks just part of the drill. In the mid-90's, anyone flying into or out of Schiphol was greeted with soldiers walking around with machine guns, and each and every time I had to explain why I was working in Holland (when there were doubtlessly Dutch people just as qualified) and had to provide a letter and phone number from the company I was headed to. Was always pulled in to an interrogation room when entering or leaving Japan, because my passport had been stolen there once, and the new one was marked as such. Had to root through my carry-on in Tampa and throw out too-big bottles and jars. Remarked that now I would be a lot less beautiful (I was 66 at the time) and was rewarded with a waltz through the really quick employees gateway, because I made them laugh, and did not get all pissy.

The most important part of any flight, to me, is did I get to my destination in one piece. All the rest is is either gravy or, um, gravy with lumps.

I had trouble when I was making multiple stop trips in the US, but have had it easy on international travel.

I have a GOES pass, which helps a lot when coming back into the country.

As much as I like getting to destinations, I hate the traveling part. It just has to be endured.

Delta combined business class with first class. Bliss.
I would happily take that Atlanta to Narita flight any time. Just for fun. Seriously. Business Elite, not coach, of course.

Although maybe it is not so much fun any more. Plus the fully refundable and changeable ticket was anywhere from $5000 to $7000, back in the 1995/2000 time-frame.

One thing I remembered - all the other countries had handy and free luggage carts available for incoming flights. Here in the US, we had to pay or find a skycap. And the airports overseas also were train and bus hubs. A lot easier to get around.
Boy, do we need to spend money on infrastructure. Not war. (end of soapbox.)

It would so much more fun to be in a comfortable seat with plenty of room.

But, as you point out, the cost is way over my head.

Agree that it is generally a lot easier to get into town from many airports outside of the US.

We could really use some trains or upgraded bus systems. The buses in Mexico for travel between major hubs are as good as a first class airline seat. There is lots of competition and the prices are great. It would be great to have that in the US.

Fast track access through security.

With amenities.

How in the hell is that a thing you 'endure'?

#FirstWorldProblems

Ah, but the horrors of having to board an airplane for one's 90-day Italian holiday. Truly remarkable what some folks are able to endure.

in that they put way too much stock, perhaps you could say faith, in the Singularity and technological accessibility and culture in general.

By the way, Hermant Mehta has a great response to this on his blog:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/06/11/transhumanist-party-presidential-candidate-wants-atheists-to-be-exempt-from-airport-security-checks/

On a political level, Zoltan, whose name belongs in a Douglas Adams novel, reminds me of nutcases like anarchist capitalists, other extreme libertarian, etc.

I don't get trans-humanism.

Thanks for the Mehta link. He links to another article in which the point is made that most terrorist attacks are politically motivated.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/06/should-atheists-be-exempted-from-airport-security-checks.html

I think it's very hard to tease out what is religious and what is political, but Mr. Zoltan's idea is lunacy.

However, the beliefs of trans-humanism themselves are generally, in extremely broad strokes, sound. They are just far too optimistic, at least of cultural and economic change.

Especially when talking about the Singularity, which I find foolish. I mean, in general, the trans-humanist ethos is that humanity should improve itself with technology, including even our bodies. Given current technology progress, trans-humanism is happening right now, kinda like automation. At the moment its research and practical implementation of neural networked limbs. We can, probably within the next 5 years, actually create the 6 million dollar man, we would truly have the technology. We have wetware(brain) interfaces that communicate directly to the brain, we are beginning to radically reduce the price of artificial limbs, cochlear implants are becoming more common and advanced. Right now much of this technology is being used to aid the disabled and injured, in the future, it can be easily adapted to enhance our abilities.

However, there is a huge stumbling block, that some of this research may help solve, the brain itself, and many of its functions, remain largely a mystery. I think huge leaps in advancement of our senses will take place, this seems a certainty, with the amount of neural plasticity of the brains of even adults, you can see us adapt to even "extra" previously non-existent senses. But improvements to the brains performance, for example, neural implants to increase math skill, or memory, even things such as mind uploading, are a long ways off, if they are even possible at all.

Also, please note that, as of right now, culturally and legally speaking, there is far less opposition to us having implants to improve ourselves than, for example, genetic therapy. Not to mention biotechnology is lagging behind in many aspects, we are building limbs out of metal and wire right now that are nearly as dexterous as our natural limbs, soon enough, once we find ways to improve energy storage and refinements, they may exceed what our limbs can do. Yet, we are still some ways off before we can clone a missing limb using human stem cells. Still worth pursuing, obviously, but its just harder to do at the moment.

I guess you can say I'm a mild trans-humanist in that, in general, I think we should pursue technologies that will help us improve ourselves, aid the disabled, and reduce overall suffering in people. Whether that involves augmentation of otherwise healthy humans is probably best left up to those people who choose to do so. I certainly don't see anything wrong with people pursuing such things. However, I will say I would like to make sure such augmentations, especially if found to radically improve the quality of our lives, are widely available, rather than only being something the rich can afford.

As you note, there is the risk that the kinds of the advances you talk about will be available only to those that can afford it. There is an elitist tone to some of this that makes me uneasy.

I agree that we should pursue technologies that reduce suffering or address illness, but at some point a line needs to be drawn. What is "cosmetic", as opposed to necessary? Who will be entitled to those kinds of things? Should we be investing resources in things that are not truly necessary if that takes away from pursuing what could truly be considered medical treatment?

Anyway, it's interesting and I greatly appreciate your insights on this.

we don't need a class of bionic, immortal, Übermensch ruling over us, after all.

This is why I think we need to advocate for mincome, to smooth the transition of our increasingly automated economy, reclassify what work is, and universal health care. Also, access to such technologies as those that improve ourselves should be greatly improved over time due to technological advancement. A great example of this is happening now, just 5 years ago, a simple artificial limb, for example a semi-articulated hand to help you carry things, would cost thousands of dollars, and you hope your insurance will cover it. Nowadays, you can print a new hand, custom designed and fitted for your needs, for about 20 dollars.

Granted these are simple devices, but then again, so were the hooks and clamps in most artificial hands of the past.

Also, forget cosmetic changes, we are talking functional, for example, if a perfectly healthy human wanted a cochlear implant, today, to allow them to hear in ranges that only dogs and cats can hear in, it may or may not be practical, but is there really an argument to prevent them to do so, even from a medical ethics standpoint? Or getting the lens in your eye replaced to allow you to see like an eagle, 2X, 4X, even 10-20X, what, legally or ethically, is wrong with that?

Of course, that's just senses being enhanced, if we want to talk about more radical technologies, for example, if possible, life extension and/or mind uploading, that leads to all sorts of sticky questions. I would say such things should fall under a type of "basic health" need if they become available and practical.

I agree with what you say in general, but do not have the expertise to weigh in on the kinds of technological advances you are discussing.

I do think the line between functional and cosmetic can be blurry. Quality of life becomes a very grey issue, while preserving a life might be much clearer.

Satire is dying a horrible, slow death in the US.

I represent zero political or religious threat to others, and live by the nonaggression principle.

Lines for patdowns and psychological screening games are stupid and useless for people like me. By all means sign me up for this thought experiment.