Редактирование: Gennady Stolyarov (раздел)

== Academic Discussion ==
In her 2015 paper “Rand and the Austrians: The Ultimate Value and the Non-Interference Principle”, Kathleen Touchstone, retired Professor of Economics at Troy University, describes Stolyarov’s critique of Ayn Rand’s “immortal robot” argument.<ref name=":11">Touchstone, Kathleen.  2015. “[https://philpapers.org/archive/KTORAT.pdf Rand and the Austrians: The Ultimate Value and the Non-Interference Principle]” (PDF).  Libertarian Papers. 7 (2): 169-204. Retrieved October 28, 2021. p. 183: “Gennady  Stolyarov (2008)  views  Rand’s robot  as  one of  her  least defensible arguments. Because of biomedical advances, human lifespans may allow for an indefinite existence. This possibility would not transform humans into indestructible robots because they would still be subject to biological decay if untreated as well as vulnerable to death from accidents. Even an indestructible robot could have values and a motivation for pursuing them as long as it had human perceptual and cognitive abilities.” p. 190: “Stolyarov states: 'While man’s mind cannot envision infinite size or infinite smallness, it can conceive of the possibility of “infinite” longevity  of anything:  buildings,  planets, animals,  men—so  long as  these  entities had  a  certain origin in time.  This phenomenon can be referred to as a chronological infinity, though I use this term with reservation, because it does not truly describe an infinity,  for  all the  measurements  concerning it  must  be in  all  cases finite.' (2013, 77–78)”</ref> Touchstone also addresses the distinction made by Stolyarov between infinite size or smallness (which, in Stolyarov’s view, is impossible for humans to conceive), and chronological infinities, which Stolyarov considers humans to be capable of envisioning. Touchstone comments on this, stating that “Man can comprehend aging, because he experiences it, but death of one’s self is not quite comprehensible.”<ref name=":11" />

In their 2017 book ''Juvenescence: Investing in the Age of Longevity'', entrepreneurs and investors [[Jim Mellon]] and Al Chalabi write, “Longevists such as Gennady Stolyarov have also been prominent in recent years. Stolyarov wrote that death is ‘the enemy of us all, to be fought with medicine, science, and technology’ – and adding our own postscript, only now are the armaments for that fight available to scientists.”<ref>Mellon, Jim, and Al Chalabi. ''Juvenescence: Investing in the Age of Longevity.'' Fruitful Publications, 2017, ISBN: 978-0-9930478-1-7, p. 261. “Longevists such as Gennady Stolyarov have also been prominent in recent years. Stolyarov wrote that death is ‘the enemy of us all, to be fought with medicine, science, and technology’ – and adding our own postscript, only now are the armaments for that fight available to scientists.” (p. 261)</ref> 

In his 2018 book ''Ayn Rand and the Posthuman: The Mind-Made Future,'' author and literary scholar [[Ben Murnane]], PhD, addresses Stolyarov’s effort in 2004 to combine Objectivist philosophy with the Principles of Extropy authored by [[Max More]]: “Stolyarov argues that Objectivism – with its philosophical focus on the individual productive life, not on the supernatural realm or the needs of the many – provides the basis for a ''moral defense'' of transhumanist goals, where traditional moral systems may be opposed to such goals”.<ref>Murnane, Ben. ''Ayn Rand and the Posthuman: The Mind-Made Future, 1<sup>st</sup> ed.  ''Palgrave MacMillan. 2018. ISBN: 978-3319908526. p. 86. “A 2004 article in the Québécois libertarian journal, ''Le Québécois Libre,'' puts forward just such an Objectivist-transhumanist synthesis. Gennady Stolyarov II discusses the life-extension theories and science of gerontologist Aubrey de Grey, who is working toward the reversal of the aging process. De Grey’s theories that aging can be ended within the next several decades are supported by, among others, Ray Kurzweil, a futurist and Google’s chief engineer, and another famous figure within the transhumanist movement. Stolyarov argues that Objectivism – with its philosophical focus on the individual productive life, not on the supernatural realm or the needs of the many – provides the basis for a ''moral defense'' of transhumanist goals, where traditional moral systems may be opposed to such goals […]”</ref>

In his 2019 book ''Transhumanism: Engineering the Human Condition: History, Philosophy and Current Status'', Italian science writer, journalist, and historian of science Roberto Manzocco includes a discussion of “Stolyarov’s Wager, a philosophical argument in favor of life extension that goes like this:

* If you believe in human life extension and are right, you have everything to win – a happy, prosperous, indefinite life that you can be sure of in this world.
* If you believe in human life extension and are wrong, you cease to exist.
* If you do not believe in human life extension and are right, you cease to exist.
* If you do not believe in human life extension and are wrong, it may be that the effort that you did not put in to promoting the idea was just enough for the possibility not to come to pass. Then, you will cease to exist.”<ref>Manzocco, Roberto. ''[https://content.cosmos.art/media/pages/library/transhumanism-engineering-the-human-condition/2081831187-1601363811/transhumanism-engineering-the-human-condition-history-philosophy-and-current-status-by-roberto-manzocco-z-lib.org.pdf Transhumanism: Engineering the Human Condition: History, Philosophy and Current Status]'' (PDF)''.'' Springer Praxis Books. 2019. <nowiki>ISBN 978-3-030-04956-0</nowiki>. Pp. 110-111.</ref>

Sociologist and public-policy professional James Michael MacFarlane, PhD, met Stolyarov at RAADfest 2016 in San Diego and included an account of some of his conversations with Stolyarov in his 2020 book ''Transhumanism as a New Social Movement: The Techno-Centered Imagination''.<ref name=":9">MacFarlane, James Michael. ''Transhumanism as a New Social Movement: The Techno-Centered Imagination''. Springer Nature. 2020. <nowiki>ISBN 978-3-030-40089-7</nowiki>. p. 112.</ref> MacFarlane cites Stolyarov as remarking that “just anyone can identify with the philosophy [of transhumanism] and share the fundamental aims of the philosophy”; MacFarlane makes the characterization that from “Stolyarov’s point of view, Transhumanism quite clearly has an openly accommodating and fundamentally inclusive element to it. This line of thinking can again be considered parallel to the suggestion that transhumanist impulses have something of a universally accessible, even innate quality about them.”<ref name=":9" />

Krisztián Szabados, a director at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, wrote in 2020 about the 2016 peaceful transition of the Chairman position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party from [[Zoltan Istvan]] to Stolyarov.<ref>Szabados, Krisztián (December 2020). ''[http://phd.lib.uni-corvinus.hu/1132/1/szabados_krisztian_den.pdf Transhumanism as a Thin-centered Ideology].'' (PDF) Corvinus University of Budapest. p. 48 “[Zoltan Istvan’s] political activism and strong libertarian leanings stirred numerous controversies within the U.S. Transhumanist Party and the wider transhumanist movement, and he was replaced in a peaceful way by Gennady Stolyarov II as the new chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party in November 2016.”</ref>

In his 2021 critique of the transhumanist concept of morphological freedom, Joshua Earle of the University of Virginia, PhD in Science, Technology, and Society, wrote about the explicit connection of Stolyarov’s activities to the philosophy of the Enlightenment and has criticized Stolyarov and the U.S. Transhumanist Party leadership for, in his view, being “clueless” as to why the USTP has “overwhelmingly” male membership.<ref name=":8" />