• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

memespace and public perception


  • Please log in to reply
153 replies to this topic

Poll: Which label do you prefer for our movement/philosophy? (50 member(s) have cast votes)

Which label do you prefer for our movement/philosophy?

  1. Immortalism (18 votes [37.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 37.50%

  2. Extensionism (15 votes [31.25%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.25%

  3. Other (15 votes [31.25%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.25%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 maestro949

  • Guest
  • 2,350 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Rhode Island, USA

Posted 06 June 2006 - 10:10 PM

jaydfox has been stunned into silence :)

#62 DJS

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 06 June 2006 - 10:27 PM

Splitting up the community is certainly not the answer.

Wayne's World moment:

Garth- "Fine then go!"

Wayne- "I'm gone!"

Garth- "Go then!"

Wayne- "But I am!"

Garth- "Go!"

Wayne- "I'm gone!"

Garth- "Go then!"

Wayne- "But I am!"



#63 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 06 June 2006 - 10:30 PM

Well you wouldn't have to split up the community to start a completely new site. Better than totally tearing down and rebuilding. (imo)

I frequent several different sites. I wouldn't stop going to one just because I found another one I liked.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#64 stephen

  • Guest
  • 202 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 07 June 2006 - 12:18 AM

I think the conflict here is arising from people who have different views about what ImmInst's mission should be. There are two general choices.

A. Community Resource

Target: Current transhumanists and those actively pursuing immortality.

Providing a specialized forum for discussion of biological immortality. Sponsoring projects like the Methusaleh Mouse Prize, essay contests, and investing resources (talent and monetary) into promoting immortality "behind the scenes". Kind of like Greenpeace... you find it if you're looking for it. The mainstream thinks you're a bit nutty, but you cater to the hardcore.

B. Public Advocacy

Target: Politicians, academics, and journalists.

Running a lobby in Washington DC. Directly sponsorship and promotion with the intent of publicity for longevity related causes. TV interviews with CNN. Guest editorials in the WSJ and NYT. Kind of like the Environmental Defense Fund... policy makers take your advice and you're invited on shows for more than shock value. But you often have a more moderate stance than the hardcore crowd.

We're a bit of both right now. The people who see us more as a "Public Advocacy" group think the name is a travesty from a PR standpoint (and rightly so). However, it's also a resounding success for those who see us primarily as a "Community Resource".

Which do we want to be? We can't be everything to everyone... (Personally, I think we're about 70% B and 30% A. What do you think?)

#65 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 07 June 2006 - 12:19 AM

Trying to achieve Immortality is trying to achieve Immortality, no matter what name it has on it. I think it might be a bad idea to change boats midstream, like actually changing the name of the Institute itself. However, if it may be possible to generate more capital for projects and research that could help us achieve Immortality faster (such as direct financial support for Mprize, innovative AI, and maybe nootropic research), the ImmInst Leadership might consider leveraging its search results and come out with perhaps its own products and services. If not its own supplement brand, then the Institute might consider a subsidiary corporation to shoulder the attached liability. Being a (full) member of the Institute could accrue many of the same benefits upon full members as LEF's membership; such as a monthly magazine, discounts on supplement products, blood testing, a ImmInst credit card, etc. And then the Institute might also then consider raising the rates here and offering competitive salaries for the folks that organize and maintain all of the aforementioned programs.

#66 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 07 June 2006 - 12:27 AM

think the conflict here is arising from people who have different views about what ImmInst's mission should be. There are two general choices.


There should be no doubt about the mission

Article II. -- Mission & Function

    * Section 1 -- Main Mission
      The mission of ImmInst is to conquer the blight of involuntary death.
     
    * Section 2 -- Umbrella Organization
      ImmInst shall function as an umbrella organization to help its members succeed in working towards the possibility of human physical immortality. This Institute shall serve as a platform for the exhibition, exchange, debate, and creation of concepts and methods toward that end as well as to disseminate any and all relevant information for the purpose of human physical immortality.
     
    * Section 3 -- Independent Society
      ImmInst is formed as an independent society of private individuals. It shall not merge with, become a subset of, or become solely dependent upon any other organization, institution, or individual.
     
    * Section 4 -- Nonprofit Educational & Charitable Organization
      ImmInst is organized exclusively for charitable, educational, and scientific purposes as may qualify it as exempt from federal income tax under applicable sections of the Internal Revenue Code (1986), as amended, or corresponding section(s) of any future federal tax code. Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Constitutions or in the Bylaws, ImmInst shall not engage in any activities that would endanger its status as exempt from federal income tax under Section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or its status as a corporation, contributions to which are deductible under Section 170©(2) of the Internal Revenue Code.



#67 DJS

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 07 June 2006 - 12:42 AM

Nate

Well you wouldn't have to split up the community to start a completely new site. Better than totally tearing down and rebuilding. (imo)


stephen

A. Community Resource

B. Public Advocacy



You know Nate, the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to agree with you....Don goes into brainstorming mode...

#68 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 07 June 2006 - 01:17 AM

Posted Image

#69 DJS

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 07 June 2006 - 01:33 AM

Wow Jay, usually your posts are at least 3 pages long. This is uncharacteristic of you. [lol]

Boucing ideas off of each other is probably one of the most valuable aspect of the forums. Wouldn't you agree?

#70 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 07 June 2006 - 02:04 AM

[thumb]

:))

#71 DJS

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 07 June 2006 - 02:24 AM

Oh, don't get me started with the emoticons...

Posted Image

#72 Kalepha

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 0

Posted 07 June 2006 - 03:09 AM

The Dark Side momentously beckons. Immortalism.

#73 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 07 June 2006 - 04:37 AM

There should be no doubt about the mission..."The mission of ImmInst is to conquer the blight of involuntary death."

It very clear that whomever wrote this fanciful mission has no education in marketing, especially the subset of marketing called press relations. This is merely a meaningless hype statement that does no good whatsoever.

I'm seeing lots of comments in this thread that, to put it bluntly, are the opinions of those who simply have no true education on branding or PR, and therefore they will lead this group down the path of certain obscurity.

Good luck!

#74 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 07 June 2006 - 04:40 AM

It very clear that whomever wrote this fanciful mission has no education in marketing, especially the subset of marketing called press relations.  This is merely a meaningless hype statement that does no good whatsoever.

I'm seeing lots of comments in this thread that, to put it bluntly, are the opinions of those who simply have no true education on branding or PR, and therefore they will lead this group down the path of certain obscurity.

Good luck!


Posted Image

#75 Da55id

  • Guest
  • 436 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Springfield, va
  • NO

Posted 07 June 2006 - 05:05 AM

HI - Rather than deciding on names, reconsider or rededicate the mission. Then decide/discover - what you can uniquely, successfully, sustainably and efficiently do to accomplish it - that is not ALREADY being done well by (many) others. Then, answer this... What demographic(s) will then be the population that can be appealed to for resources to carry it out? Once this is thought out you could be in position to decide on names.

For instance, you could ask Prometheus for his sense of the single best idea to cure/solve a key element of aging. Or ask Aubrey which SENS strand you can help get started. Then ask DukeN. to take the lead in branding / PR for that focused idea. Then do it. then do it some more...focus...finish.

Find the hole in the market. fill it.

#76 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 07 June 2006 - 05:50 AM

American spend 20 billion dollars a year on anti aging products.(1)

There is nothing wrong with the mission or the name. It's mainstream marketing appeal is relatively nil, however. When I think I have a good idea, I usually bounce it off other people I know for response. Go into your workplace, or maybe try a party you are at, who knows, and just throw out the word: "Immortality." I usually use fellow college students to test response for cognitive enhancers because they are the prime market. Where is the focus of the discission on life extension "meme"? It's everywhere -- but on the Internet, it's mostly here :). Folks don't explore what they could do to extend or enhance their lives in public too often these days...nor does everyone use Google...or like to read Internet forums...(barely anyone I know reads a single Internet forum)

Vagina Cream...If you want to catch everyones attention with an idea, you can portray the idea in a controversial way to garner the most response. You will see where everyone stands on an issue or if people even care. Try saying Immortality and Vagina Cream and see which more folks pay attention to. Oh, and once you get everyones attention with Vagina Cream, you can change the topic quickly to its application to the Immortality Institute if you want them to remember what you said...

A suggestion might be to throw ideas around here and see what folks think...as Don brilliantly did by initiating this very topic...

Peace out. Good night. :p

Edited by nootropikamil, 07 June 2006 - 06:21 AM.


#77 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 07 June 2006 - 07:35 AM

A. Community Resource

B. Public Advocacy


Why splitting it up, we can have the best of both worlds.

It's some kind of human genetic error to always shout: "OR...OR...OR"
Now is the time for "AND...AND...AND"

Sounds a lot more optimistic also, what are we, Orks?

[!:)]




[lol]

#78

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 07 June 2006 - 11:13 AM

It very clear that whomever wrote this fanciful mission has no education in marketing, especially the subset of marketing called press relations.  This is merely a meaningless hype statement that does no good whatsoever.

I'm seeing lots of comments in this thread that, to put it bluntly, are the opinions of those who simply have no true education on branding or PR, and therefore they will lead this group down the path of certain obscurity.

Good luck!


You forgot Good Night!

Mind very correctly noted that we "own" immortality on googlespace.
To put this distinction in proper context however, it is useful to know who "owned" it only few months ago - Alex Chiu and his magnets.

Dukenukem in his controversial and brutally honest post suggests we are heading into obscurity. I would say that we are already there. What we need is a path out of obscurity, away from the Alex Chiu's, the Jhershierra's and the fake growth hormone peddlers. We need to distance ourselves from fantasist nonsence and build a foundation that is based on a respect for science and community.

If a label must be sacrificied, or at least set aside for the time being, in order to have a reasonable chance at engaging the greater community, then we would be failing ourselves and everyone else by not doing so. One would think we had all the time in the world, that we had already achieved the objective of the stated mission and we were idly waiting for the rest of the world to catch up.

Reality check. The scientific community is nowhere near the establishment of a solid theory on the cause of aging let alone on being able to significantly modulate it. Unless the current state of affairs changes we and all of our loved ones are going to die. Even those who undergo cryonic suspension will require a level of technology to repair the damage of freezing that is nothing short of science fiction. If and when that time comes who is to say that anyone would bother? The only way to secure a passage to such a speculative destination would be to guard it with substantial wealth.

Therefore, we must exchange our pseudo-enlightened nonchalance for a sense of urgency. Time ticks by with no solution in sight. The notion of becoming more palatable and accessible to the greater community may feel uncomfortable at first but it is something that we can no longer ignore.

#79 ag24

  • Honorary Member, Advisor
  • 320 posts
  • 29
  • Location:Cambridge, UK

Posted 07 June 2006 - 11:54 AM

Apologies for the length of this, but, well, I had a transatlantic flight and a new laptop battery...

My position on the **accuracy** of attaching the word "immortality" (or any word beginning with "immortal") to what people here are about is clear and simple, and is summarised at the bottom of at my site: it has no place in what we do, because it means the absence of any **possibility** of death at any time in the near or distant future. Fine so far: but that, of course, doesn't answer the question of what should be our relation to that set of terms? The choice is:

- embrace it
- distance ourselves from it
- rise above it (elaborated below)

In order to decide which of these positions to adopt, we need (I think we all agree) to determine how the position will be perceived by others. How we perceive it within the group is virtually irrelevant.

So .... let's look at the option of distancing ourselves from it. I am a specialist in just one aspect of life extension, namely the combating of aging, and yet most of the articles or programmes centred on me, even in entirely serious fora such as 60 Minutes or Popular Science or Fortune, use the word "immortality" in the title and most of the rest use phrases such as "live forever". This is in no way for want of information: the bulk of these pieces are the result of extensive time spent with me and the text of the pieces reveals no great misunderstanding of what I do. I think we can conclude with absolute confidence that, of the three steps between our current situation and true immortality, the first is the one that by far dominates people's thinking. The three are, of course:

1) eliminating the increase with age in risk of death, i.e. "colloquial immortality"
2) reducing risk of death over time fast enough that some people really will live forever (see my previous posts on this - someone please edit this post to link to them, I'm just home and too zonked to do it - and my ImmInst book chapter), i.e. "possible immortality" (Edit: possible link he was referring to: http://www.imminst.o...w=pid&pid=38728 )
3) achieving a xero risk of death, i.e. true immortality

and I very much doubt that anyone here disputes that (1) is technically feasible, (2) may not be technically feasible depending on the true laws of physics but is certainly technically feasible for a few billion years at least, and (3) is technically absolutely impossible, i.e. it is not possible without divine intervention. Yet, the inescapability of aging has so pervaded civilisation for so many millennia that the difference between (1) and (3), let alone the difference between (2) and (3), has no weight at all in the world view of the general public. I don't think the terminology of profiles on me is exceptional in this regard -- it's a function of the topic, not the person.

This says to me that we must abandon any attempt to distance ourselves from the "immortal/ism/ity/" family of terms. It's a totally quixotic endeavour which could potentially dissipate our collective energy, just as it certainly has for the SCNT community in respect of "cloning". We may, however, be able to turn this impossibility to our advantage - see below.

Next let's look at embracing the term. Here I mean embracing it fully, i.e. actually downplaying the difference between (2) and (3) above. I think that is a position which has very little to recommend it, since it undoubtedly implies a lack of critical thinking. It seems to me that, insofar as such a position has been supported in this group in the past, that has resulted from a strong emphasis on the tecnological feasibility of (2) and not just (1), underlined by the philosophical position of a number of people that life only has meaning if one literally never dies.

The nub of the issue as I see it, therefore, is whether there is a best of both worlds: a way to avoid being marginalised by our association with the term "immortality" while also avoiding spinning our wheels in a vain effort to escape from that term. I think this is indeed possible -- I think we can rise above this problem. I could be wrong, certainly, but in view of the above I think that even if this is a risky path it's still preferable to either of the alternatives just discussed.

My optimism on this point arises from the factually incontrovertible but superficially subtle difference between immortality types 2 and 3 above, i.e. possible and true immortality. This distinction is one that we can all explain given the time, and also it's one that doesn't depend at all on what's technologically foreseeable. In those respects it is rather reminiscent of the distinction between perfectly curing aging and longevity escape velocity: one is quite patently impossible with even remotely foreseeable technology and the other is totally plausible, but the knee-jerk reaction is to elide that distinction entirely, on account of the superficial similarity of the two scenarios' implications for the longevity of people currently alive.

Now, I don't claim that I've yet succeeded in hammering the LEV concept home to those who were initially most scornful of my claims for how long people currently alive may live: they still are. But their credibility is progressively slipping away as people, especially the media, take the trouble to listen to me enough to grok the LEV concept and communicate it to others. That needs to accelerate -- and it will, as journalists increasingly spell out the fact that the argument that LEV is imminent relies not on assumptions about rates of scientific progress but only on assumptions about technological progress, which are much more robustly deriveable from historical precedent.

Adapting/exploiting this sort of strategy with respect to "immortality" seems, if not straightforward, at least plausible to me. I think the starting-point could be the phrase "colloquial immortality". A mission statement can use such a phrase quite powerfully to, as I put it above, rise above the terminology: by being subtly derogatory about what we're called by careless people, it encapsulates in just two words the three things we want to get across at the outset of any evaluation of us, ie:

- we are not about immortality as properly defined
- we realise that people are going to call us immortalists anyway
- we don't frankly care, we have work to do

Hence my recommendation, which everyone probably sees by now: I think we should stick with "Immortality Institute" and related terminology, but we should write a mission statement that defines and distinguishes the three types of so-called immortality and allies ImmInst with both colloquial and possible immortality while repudiating any opinion one way or the other on true immortality.

Naturally I'll be interested in others' reactions to the above.

Edited by jaydfox, 07 June 2006 - 02:30 PM.


#80 rjws

  • Guest
  • 143 posts
  • 0

Posted 07 June 2006 - 12:17 PM

I agree we are an obscure website. If you havnt read the results from LEsurvey then you should way over 100 responses now..


I dont know how were going to get the message out there. Maybe build a second site a subsidiary of Imminst. our marketing pr and lobbying division with a more palatable brand name.

Why does it have to be institute. ALCOR is a neat name.

Anyway something needs to be done we arent getting the message out there. Your everyday person doesn't type immortal in the google search.

#81 maestro949

  • Guest
  • 2,350 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Rhode Island, USA

Posted 07 June 2006 - 12:29 PM

I think part of the problem is that some of us would like to see ImmInst evolve into an accredited research institute focused on longevity research but maintaining the openess of intellectual debate from the public at large. I personally feel pretty strongly that the name inhibits the possibility that people will take ImmInst as a serious organization. Even if ImmInst did evolve as such and successfully demonstrate advancements in longevity research, what financial and opportunity cost is lost because someone passed on, or even delayed making a financial contribution to the institute? Obviously it's hard to quantify or project but observing how corporate America and politicians sways the masses with it's carefully crafted jargon, we should care about the words we use to describe ourselves. Clearly we know the results are far more important but sadly we live in a world where image and the words you use to describe yourself go a long way in influencing people.

#82 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 07 June 2006 - 01:37 PM

Wow, great stuff, Aubrey. I totally agree.

#83 stephen

  • Guest
  • 202 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 07 June 2006 - 01:55 PM

Well, I'm still fond of my "community resource" and "public advocacy" framework (along with the Greenpeace vs. EDF analogy). That said, there seems to be more confusion about the goals of this organization than that simple idea provides for...

There are also members (my apologies for generalizing) who feel like the goal here is to be:

1. An accredited research institute (maestro949).
2. An anti-aging product expertise center and vendor a la LEF (nootropikamil).
3. A focused resource / promotional for a SENS research topic (MethuselahMouse).
4. A broad organization that seeks to encompass every facet of aging / death (elrond, brainbox).

Honestly, the one I find most repellant (#2 - a nootropic vendor), is the one that we're best suited for. Like it or not, the supplement community here is larger and more active than the rest of the site. (But that's a discussion for a different day.)

Personally, I think we fulfill a market niche as a "public advocate". The video and book are right on target... The goal of setting up a lobbying office in Washington DC falls perfectly into line. A well-designed "ImmInst College Club" starter kit would be on the right track.

Here's a US-centric analogy. We're not Jerry Falwell (like Aubrey de Grey), late-night televangelists (like LEF), or a seminary (like the BioGeron dept at JHU)... we're like the Billy Graham Crusade for immortality.

#84 stephen

  • Guest
  • 202 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 07 June 2006 - 02:08 PM

...very good observations...


Aubrey, I think you do extremely well by being associated with the word "immortality". You're radical. Everything about you screams radical (the hair, the beard, the background, the comments). And you fit your niche perfectly -- easy to get press time and break down initial barriers to our ideas.

I don't know if that's the same image ImmInst is going for. We want to be the clean-shaven, credible PR front that you could introduce to your grandmother without scaring her (maybe?). We have the polished videos, the published book, and the credible lobbyist in DC. If that's what we're interested in (which, I'm not positive it is), then a name change (or anything at all that tears down psychological walls b/w the public and us) might be appropriate.

Just some thoughts... Although, I think you made an excellent point about the "cloning" meme never being able to divorce itself from the popular negative imagery. That would be a good case study to make sure we don't make the same mistakes...

#85 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 07 June 2006 - 02:35 PM

Aubrey, I added a link I think you were eluding to, but not sure if you had another in mind.

And again for good measure (for those not wanting to jump back a page...):
http://www.imminst.o...w=pid&pid=38728

#86 rjws

  • Guest
  • 143 posts
  • 0

Posted 07 June 2006 - 02:46 PM

I dont think well ever stop being Immortalists. Thats the term were stuck with and the media likes to use sensational terms to get sensational ratings I agree. Imminst has a powerful name its pretty well known .


When Max moore was Interviewed on crossfire and when other transhumanists are intereviewed why isn't Imminst asked for these. We just arent out there. We have rules and directors and advisors . We dont have a presence I know Aubrey is outt here on tv all the time and he rocks the screen! He is his own show though as is Alcor and the other heros we follow.

I personally Like ImmInst name but we have to become salesmen if we want to survive. People have to understand that the battle for their life is going on right now under their noses. That there are people like Leon Kass advocating their death at a time not of their choosing.

We have to package it , Spin it , deliver it and not accept refunds :)

Btw when are we gonna get a television commercial ?

#87 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 07 June 2006 - 03:01 PM

Questions that need to be answered:

o How does this group benefit our society?

o Why would someone benefit by being a member of this group?

o Why would the press want to cover this group's existence and activities?

As for Aubrey's thoughts, hanging onto immortalism in any form is going to merely cause more trouble than solutions. Meanwhile, if we had a new word that side-stepped the baggage of "immortality" then we'd have a story worthy of press attention. The more I chew on it, the more I think that a great replacement for "immortalist" is "sensist." I believe in SENS, therefore I'm a sensist. (This also honors our de facto leader, Aubrey.) This is a short word that has a chance of catching on like Fedex, phone, car, PC, etc. It also points people to the primary strategy that will lead us to practical immortalism.

The key here is that ImmInst makes its mark by being a leader, not a follower...by defining what we will become: Sensists. Press releases to this effect sent out to numerous publications would find their way into print...guaranteed.

#88 rjws

  • Guest
  • 143 posts
  • 0

Posted 07 June 2006 - 03:27 PM

I don't think sensist will work cause we support more than just Sens. Dont get me wrong Im all for SENS but we are more than that. If I could get downloaded to save my life I would in a heartbeat.

I think we need to be leaders too so far we have accomplished some nice things but nothing on a scale that will save our lives.

we are basically a far flung confederation with no centralized power. much like the original states before the Constitution under the Articles of Confederation.

We have no political power,and small income. I dont like the idea of supplement selling everytime I see LEF I think of a sleazy used car saleman(Dont ask me why)
Imminst doesnt need this image. If we did it should be under a subsidary with a different name that is for profit that could donate money to Imminst. I think several charities work this way. With money there is more we could do.

#89 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 07 June 2006 - 03:28 PM

The key here is that ImmInst makes its mark by being a leader, not a follower...by defining what we will become: Sensists. Press releases to this effect sent out to numerous publications would find their way into print...guaranteed.


I see what you are saying, but I don't think I like the term "sensist", I'd feel like it was my job to count people :))

#90 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 07 June 2006 - 03:33 PM

Questions that need to be answered:

o  How does this group benefit our society?

o  Why would someone benefit by being a member of this group?

o  Why would the press want to cover this group's existence and activities?

As for Aubrey's thoughts, hanging onto immortalism in any form is going to merely cause more trouble than solutions.  Meanwhile, if we had a new word that side-stepped the baggage of "immortality" then we'd have a story worthy of press attention.  The more I chew on it, the more I think that a great replacement for "immortalist" is "sensist."  I believe in SENS, therefore I'm a sensist.  (This also honors our de facto leader, Aubrey.)  This is a short word that has a chance of catching on like Fedex, phone, car, PC, etc.  It also points people to the primary strategy that will lead us to practical immortalism.

The key here is that ImmInst makes its mark by being a leader, not a follower...by defining what we will become:  Sensists.  Press releases to this effect sent out to numerous publications would find their way into print...guaranteed.

Sensist seems to (from a quick Google search, and subsequently searching "Sensism" since many of the definitions for "Sensist" were: One who practices sensism) already have some people vying for the word that we might not want to be associated with. (some use it in type of spiritual sense, and others use it to mean the same thing as "sensualism")


Also, let me echo that if there is other terminology, other ways to set something up, etc, there there is absolutely no reason why someone could not set up their own site. I think that we fill a niche quite nicely that is filled by absolutely no one else, and there would be a vacuum left if we changed. There is room for a lot of ideas out there, and even though the more mainstream, watered down version of what we are already seems to be proliferating, I am sure that if someone had a good idea for another site that resonates with the masses, they would find themselves quite successful. It does not need to be an "either/or" decision though, there is room for another site out there! (in fact would probably be beneficial) If it is created from scratch (instead of remaking this one) there is the opportunity to mold it into exactly what you want it to be!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users