The issue at hand.

Others in the world often accuse those in North America of provincialism--of either being unaware of much beyond national borders or imagining that one's own interests and ways of thinking are universal. But a significant portion of the young people who entered the 2004 Humanist Essay Contest for Young Women and Men of North America don't fit this image. These youth are thoughtful enough to have developed a more international perspective and empathetic enough to have made an effort to put themselves in others' shoes. This is a gratifying expression of humanized values among a growing number of those approaching age twenty-five. It bodes well for the future.

Furthermore, the Humanist benefits each year from these essays. When the contest judges declare winners, a number of the entries so recognized also turn out to be fresh and informative enough to warrant publication. This year is no exception. So we include in the present issue essays on international matters that should prove enlightening to readers.

Another youthful development is the transhumanist movement. The term transhumanism was first coined by Julian Huxley, a leading biologist and Humanist of the twentieth century, in his 1957 book, New Bottles for New Wine. Humanity is, according to Huxley, "determining the future direction of evolution on this earth" and therefore a term is needed to signify humanity's self-transformation as it develops "new possibilities of and for ... human nature." Today's transhumanists have taken up both the word and the concept.

In this issue we introduce and sample transhumanism in the form of our lead story, "Better Living Through Transhumanism" by George Dvorsky, and our cover story, "The Future of Immortality" by Brian Trent. We make no attempt to give a thorough coverage of so complex a subject in one issue. It makes more sense to provide the beginnings of an exploration into what will warrant further treatment as time goes on, and as transhumanism itself matures.

Further on the matter of looking into humanity's future, we publish a Creative Controversy feature entitled "The Privacy Paradox:" In it, Dwight Furrow draws attention to the technological as well as institutional changes that are robbing us of our privacy in ways unlikely to be successfully reversed. By placing this uncomfortable reality before us he asks that we face it honestly and then reevaluate our "fetish of privacy" in a way that can lead us to discover just why it is we wanted privacy so much in the first place.

The Humanist has a long tradition of arguing for privacy rights, so this article is sure to become controversial among readers. But the question to ask is: do we need a wake-up call? And if so, can Furrow's analysis lead us toward a solution? It's a young problem ultimately for a younger generation of Humanists to resolve in an emerging new age.