First I'd like to explain why Delphi. From the "Delphi method" book, the typical conditions for employing Delphi are:

1 The problem does not lend itself to precise analytical techniques but can benefit from subjective judgments on a collective basis

2 The individuals needed to contribute to the examination of a broad or complex problem have no history of adequate communication and may represent diverse backgrounds with respect to experience or expertise

3 More individuals are needed than can effectively interact in a face-to-face exchange

4 Time and cost make frequent group meetings infeasible

5 The efficiency of face-to-face meetings can be increased by a supplemental group communication process

6 Disagreements among individuals are so severe or politically unpalatable that the communication process must be refereed and/or anonymity assured

7 The heterogeneity of the participants must be preserved to assure validity of the results, i.e., avoidance of domination by quantity or by strength of personality ("bandwagon effect")

It seems that the problem of making a transhumanist forecast is a typical forecasting problem that is well suited for Delphi.

I think that there are already enough transhumanist thinkers (with enough books/other achievements under their belts) to contemplate such an exercise. Also, I think that the question of "what do we see in the future?" is still a relevant one, as I am not aware of a coherent and commonly accepted (to some extent) transhumanist vision of the future (even taking into account that 1) future is not deterministic and 2) we don't have all the information).

I also think that such project could be a good way to leverage and focus the authority that the experts have. Currently they either

- work alone (Ray Kurzweil), which has its limits

- have a get-together (Accelerating Change, TransVision), which gets reported on ZDNet, if that...

- do some real work (Ralph Merkle), which is nice, but doesn't get the word out

They are big names and any joint project might have as much weight as the Club op Rome had/has. But without the focus there is simply nothing to report (speaking of media).

> transhumanist experts in various technologies and related areas. How

> would you structure the Delphi survey? How would you motivate

First a physical meeting opportunity (and existing conference, such as TransVision) should be used to cue everyone in. It's not strictly necessary, but helpful, as many transhumanists are geographically spread. A small seminar, work table, working group meeting, etc. (not every participant will be present, but at least some of them) Then (or actually before this meeting) the normal foresight stuff is done. Preparation of questions, revisions, etc.

> participants (this is easy: money - see later)? How would you correct

> the bias coming from having only transhumanists in the survey? How

Existing research on Delphi surveys seems to suggest that bias is not a significant practical problem with Delphi. Reviews of foresight exercises appear to suggest that this is more or less true for forighst projects as well. To an outsider, the results may still look biased, but that's a feature, not a bug, as the goal is to make a transhumanist description of the future.

> would you format the results? Whom would you sell the results to, and

I would suggest a somewhat traditional format. A general report, some shorter additional ones if the amount of material we end up with warrants that. Most importantly, the main findings formatted in a variety of formats, optimised for maximum virality and applicability to the media. That's almost as important as the survey itself. We would need to consult with journalists, PR and marketing people to ensure that what we produce is perfect (in format) for mass media and the public. That should be the focus, not an afterthought, as is the case with all the conferences and what not (from TransVision to Accelerating Change to anything else).

I think that by organising such a project we would have enought legitimacy to back up our forecasts/statements. This example of BT, again illustrates it best. Anything that fits the format, that meets the criteria for "exciting" and that looks legit enough gets printed, reprinted ad nauseam. To do everything properly, a significan amount of PR expertise will be require, so there must be some good professionals from that field on board. But if everything is done correct, I believe the publicity effect will be very significant. Having experienced PR people will ensure the format is correct and the needs of the media are met, the excitement will be ensured by the topics (they are already exciting, but communicated extremely poorly, with the exception of some transhumanist popular science and sci-fi books, but that's not enough). And the legitimacy will be provided by involving good enough experts. Most importantly, the project will make it news, a reason to report things that it doesn't occure to any journalist to just ask any transhumanist expert about (only rarely). If the media is involved properly throughout the project, the amount of coverage can be significant.

> how much do you think such results can be worth to the buyer?

I think it would make sense to sell the results almost to the "general public" (although may be some targeting would work better). It can be packaged to make it a coffeebook table and with enough legitimacy it can be considered worth having. Think "Limits to Growth". If it's well-known it might work. Another format is just "boring" traditional report, which can be sold (in parallel) at the average price for a report on something. From a few hundreds to a thousand currency units. Another source of funds is the support of the corporate partners. We might be able to get on board some large companies. Someone like Monsanto >:-> might be willing to shell out some bucks to support a report that says "genetically engineered humans will be all the rage by 20??".

> Just to get the ball rolling...

So to sum it up. I think that

2) a complex, specific and coherent transhumanist vision is missing, but would be valuable.

3) Delphi seems to be well-suited to the task and bias is rarely a big problem in practice.

4) such projects would be a great media opportunity, that when handled professionally would produce tons of publicity.

5) the results should make a big splash.

6) the report should be packaged to have wide appeal and sold to the "general public".

1) there are enough transhumanist experts potentially available.

7) the project will provide focus to do what the experts can't do individually.