I started trying to write this post before the fallacy of leadership in a military, versus political, versus corporate, versus guerrilla misconception was introduced so I am going to add this preamble.
No leader has ever succeeded that did not listen to his troops. How do you expect to know your force if you do not listen?
On this point even Patton would agree as it comes from Sun Tzu and Caesar.
The confusion lies in what you mean by *listen*. If you mean to suggest they do not *hear* the sentiments of the troops you are simply wrong. They not only need to hear the troops to determine morale and ability but also to develop intelligence, tactics and strategy by better knowing the troops they command.
If by *listen* you mean to suggest *obey,* then it is obviously an inappropriate metaphor to introduce. There has never been an instance of a successful military operation in the entire history of mankind that was run by committee, consensus or bureaucracy. Nobody expects or even wants a democratic process in a martial structure, it is antithetical to discipline and frankly an oxymoron. The problem is that we are not an army; we are not even a true corporation. We are a *political* and educational organization with a focus on a particular goal. Political not in the standard *party politics* sense but in the socially pragmatic meaning that we must be able and willing to engage the popular political process to publicly promote the meme.
To that end and before I make this a full fledged essay let’s get practical. Duke while I busted your chops about the previous comment I want to commend this one.
(Dukenukem)
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?
These are some of the most concrete and practical questions aside from the attractive lucrative aspects of markets that has been addressed here IMHO.
If we do not answer these questions, and address them well then we have no right to exist as an organization. It is a part of the reason for this thread but also it is about taking our cause to the street. We have discussed being mainstreamed before but as of yet we are not ready. To be ready these questions must be answered in clear, concise, and unambiguous language that isn’t only easy for all to understand but approve of.
We are not going to make everyone happy so get over that part. What we need to do is create a theme that is so attractive it cannot be denied. Some will still be threatened by what we have to say but we need to be clear about the message and stay focused. We cannot fight every battle or attempt to defend every transhumanist goal worthy of mention. In fact that is not only impossible it is the reason other organizations exist and I suggest that we should develop alliances of focus with them as they should with us.
Strategic alliances already exist but there is also a competition for a somewhat common membership. For this to be overcome it must be clear to all that together we present a more balanced and competent front against ignorance and divided we undermine all our best efforts.
Another part of that message we need is addressed well by Aubrey. It also demonstrate why we should both fear and love the word immortal.
(Aubrey)
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 zero risk of death, i.e. true immortality
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 technological 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.
I do not disagree agree with Aubrey at all but I must contest the issue of *meaning for life*. It is this concept that prepared the quagmire we find ourselves. Just living does not create meaning for life. If it did depression would not exist as one of the hurdles we must confront. Life does not *equal* meaning it is a means to achieving meaning. So long as one is alive there exists hope for creating meaning in one’s life.
Much of what we need to better make people understand is that we help provide them the OPPORTUNITY to achieve meaning for their life. It is up to the individual to define what that is in terms they understand. This is also the source of where the conflict lies with many religious, political, and cultural organizations because they compete to define meaning through the psycho-social identifications they seek individuals to adopt in order to gain and keep membership to promote and perpetuate their existence. As an organization we are no different, we need to recruit and retain membership to survive. The theme we represent is as threatening to some organizations as the reformation was to the Catholic church.
In my opinion one part of our outreach should be to find those other *protestant* groups (those that protest the injustice of death), mobilize and unite our efforts before we all fall into sectarian division that dissipates our best potential. If we do not develop common cause those that oppose will divide and conquer our purpose.
I think Aubrey is saying we must better define our *mission*. For this to happen we should unambiguously focus on one (#2) of the three objectives for immortality. Frankly I think it is irrational to discuss #3 so long as we are corporeal let alone biological beings and number #1 is antithetical to the odds. The longer one lives the more risks they will be exposed to. All we can do is minimize unreasonable risk and find the means to recover from injury (both physical and psychological) while preventing or protecting ourselves against exposure from what we can. However, back to the issue of *meaning*; some of what defines meaning for many in life is derived through endeavors that include risk. For example the exploration of the seas, space, high energy physics, the resolution of political conflict etc all entail and will continue to entail great risk even if people lived for millennium.
So what’s in a word and why should we embrace it?
(Aubrey)
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.
Yes this is exactly the crux of the matter. I think there is a way out of this dilemma and I do not (as much as I opposed the term originally and am still uncomfortable with it) think we should discard it or abandon it to the unrealistic rhetoric of mystics. In fact the idea of scientific immortality forces a confrontation with the same mystical memes that are the deathist competition. Its use means that we have brought the battle for hearts and minds to the enemy. Giving it up is a tactical retreat that doesn’t necessarily bring us any closer to our goals.
So we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. How do we learn to live with this moniker? More importantly; how do we most effectively turn it to our advantage?
(Don)
There are few options as I see it:
(1) Keep the name (and defend it, redefine terms, etc) *Aubrey and many others*
(2) Establish more than one web presence for the movement and have multiple messages for multiple groups. *Live Forever, maestro*
(3) Lose the name (go for something more conservative, less confrontational, and/or more memetic appeal) *Harold, yourself, and many others*
There is one option that no one has suggested yet. It is a marketing trick that is in common use today and perhaps we are fortunate that we are already halfway there.
We can repackage ourselves, alter the name subtly and redefine *practical immortality* in scientific terms that describe rational methodologies to achieve significant longevity. Leave immortality as a goal to define *Objective perfection of the ideal* but focus on the pragmatic means for making definable steps in the right direction.
Immortality is the star we guide this ship by not purpose for building our pyramids. We need to distance ourselves from the mystical attributes of the word and establish a rational beachhead and step aside from the debate over the mystical, cultural, and *heroic* aspects of the ideal with all the élan of Woody Allen’s immortal quote:
“I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying.”
(Don)
Actually, let me try breaking that down again.
(1) Keep the name and the message exactly as is.
(2) Keep the name and tweek the message.
(3) Add on additional names and messages (sacrifices clarity and unity for coverage and defendability)
(4) Lose the name and change the message.
“Eternal nothingness is fine if you happen to be dressed for it.” (Woody Allen)
We can tweak the name and the message. If we lose the name we are backtracking and will dissipate more than we gain from the process. Let’s take a page from business and trim our name further, keep the principles, all while elaborating on them in more detail and modifying the message to be consistent.
We have come close when calling ourselves Imminst. I think it is important to *own the meme* but we can describe practical and scientific immortality in rational terms ONLY and clarify that we are talking about *longevity* and *maximal lifespan*.
For example what about shortening the nickname to I&I.org and expanding the message in our meme to focus on science, longevity, and life extension?
LongeCity
