209 replies to this topic

[Athanasios]

First off, I voted for the new page over the old one, because I think it is an improvement that can further be improved upon in the future. The criticism I have, and expressed in the past, is lack of integration with other life extension sites/projects/movements. This new page is much better at this than the old one, but it is not enough, IMO.

It seems to me that there has to be a clear decision on whether the institute is more for pushing forward the life extensionist movement in general, or going on a more self-oriented specific path. If it is to be for promotion, collaboration, and acceleration of all that is life extension out there, then the gluing together of all that is out there is a very important task. I would say this because the WHOLE would be more important than the institute itself. If the institute was to take a more self-oriented path, it should be run strictly as a business to achieve the resolution of that specific task in order to advance the whole (extensionist movement). Only with the latter choice would I agree with Dukes statement:

If I owned stock in Imminst, I'd sell it, because the long-term outlook is dismal.

Which is still unfair since this is a moment of transition, but I think that was the point of the statement, to emphasize the need of transition.

[DukeNukem]

I have seen doctors slap patients across the face to gain their attention.

Yes, I've come on strong, but not because I'm trying to be mean -- I am trying to wake people up here to the truth. It's my nature, perhaps unfortunately, to be blunt and emphasize the negative. To be clear, I think this place can be much more than it is. I like Immisnt, but I don't see that it has much to do with conquering involuntary death.

If I were king, I'd...

o Change the name on Imminst. It doesn't have the catchy-factor of Fedex. It also hamstrings itself with the use of "immortality," a word I strongly believe is a net-negative as a draw to potential members. Gods are immortals, not people. We can NEVER be immortal, because regardless of the success of SENS, we can still permanently die via tragic accidents. And anyone that responds that we can store our memory in computers in case that happens just further paints this place as wacky-ville.

o Find out exactly our role in furthering the cause of open-ended lifespans (OEL). IMO, currently all that Immist does is [1] provide information, and [2] provide a discussion area for like-minded people interested in OEL.

Here are things we should be doing...

o Create the buzzword that will be accepted by people as representing people who believe in OEL. This buzzword is then the basis for generating press attention.

o Put together summits or whatever that bring together key people who are furthering the cause of OEL. This makes Imminst matter. It's newsworthy. It makes Imminst something more than just a discussion group -- it will play an active role in the movement.

o Create a free invitation-only discussion area solely for the top researchers in this field, where no other member can see. Scientists like to discuss their ideas, but only where they know others cannot see. I've seen this work spectacularly well in other industries, and in fact, I helped create such a discussion area that's by-far the biggest in the game industry. Again, this makes Immist a player. Also, many of these scientist will show curiosity about the regular discussion areas and likely participate. Good for us all.

o Drop several of the forums that dilute the focus of the primary mission here. These forums send a message that Imminst is unfocused. They can all be dropped into a less obtrusive bucket/forum called "Water Cooler" on something.

o Long-term: Immist should fund efforts, like SENS. Again, playing an active role makes Immist a player, rather than a commentator.

[Bruce Klein]

Great ideas, Duke. I'm ready to help implement!

We can NEVER be immortal, because regardless of the success of SENS, we can still permanently die via tragic accidents. And anyone that responds that we can store our memory in computers in case that happens just further paints this place as wacky-ville.

Duke, I suspect many members will think you are wacky by discounting the importance of cyborgization. Immortality is possible so long as a living entity continues to reduce the risk of death into infinity. Here's my crude graph of the idea:

Attached Files

•  risk.gif   7.85KB   0 downloads

[Bruce Klein]

I know that a number of you - Bruce, Laz, Caliban, Reason, et al - came together to craft this mission statement. It does not give it any greater validity because of that. It merely shows that you were collectively wrong. And now you must have the courage to move on.

Harold,

I generally think your ideas about the current mission statement are quite helpful and on point. Do you have alternative suggestions?

[Bruce Klein]

o Drop several of the forums that dilute the focus of the primary mission here. These forums send a message that Imminst is unfocused. They can all be dropped into a less obtrusive bucket/forum called "Water Cooler" on something.

Duke, I think this could be implemented rather quickly. Please make a list of forums and bring to a Leadership vote.

Incidentally, I also think this should be our philosophy when thinking about Advisors and Navigators in order to maintain the specialness of the roles.

[Lazarus Long]

Also Duke there are no kings here and there never will be as long as we hold to core values. While many of your suggestions are good some are redundant and you might find if you looked that they are already in place. For example we already have a *catcher*, what you might call the water cooler, as well as the off topic lounge etc.

In this case it comes down more to finding accord on what belongs there rather than implementing new areas to put things.

It also comes down to doing the actual housecleaning from time to time and better defining how those responsibilities are met.

However this idea:

o Create a free invitation-only discussion area solely for the top researchers in this field, where no other member can see. Scientists like to discuss their ideas, but only where they know others cannot see. I've seen this work spectacularly well in other industries, and in fact, I helped create such a discussion area that's by-far the biggest in the game industry. Again, this makes Immist a player. Also, many of these scientist will show curiosity about the regular discussion areas and likely participate. Good for us all.

Is and very good one IMHO. This approach has already been informally done from time to time with very good results and I think it is a valuable idea to formalize into an official policy.

o Put together summits or whatever that bring together key people who are furthering the cause of OEL. This makes Imminst matter. It's newsworthy. It makes Imminst something more than just a discussion group -- it will play an active role in the movement.

This has been done already too and is currently on the table for the next conference. However these are very expensive time consuming affairs. An alternative might be to have a more informal smaller conclave summit that could be organized around specific individuals from time to time and these could be held more often and in more places.

o Long-term: Immist should fund efforts, like SENS. Again, playing an active role makes Immist a player, rather than a commentator.

I not only agree with this proposal but have offered a number of times that we incorporate it into our dues strategy such that a member gets to allocate a percentage of collected dues to be redistributed routinely to one or more of a set of approved programs that we become *official* sponsors for.

This amount would be cumulative and allow a member to feel they are making a significant contribution through this organization. It parallels the issue of developing online journal access but is more in line with practical results than education alone.

This approach is a start until we can figure out how to gain a foothold in the grant category that would allow us to both further this organization and also redistribute more sizable amounts of funds to research that we evaluate as worthy of receiving such support.

Also we might have set up a review board that looks at different ideas from researchers and industry and publishes their basics proposals and links such that others interested in contributing to these ideas can locate them and provide support.

This review board might serve to separate the gems from the dirt and hold the programs up for a little better scrutiny and then reward the better ideas fostering them directly or at least promoting them to others that are more capable of providing funding.

[jaydfox]

1. "Blight" - what does this mean? When I first read it I had to look the word up. Its primary and secondary definitions are associated with plant disease. Why was this word chosen?

I guess "blight" doesn't have the appeal internationally that it does in the U.S.

[jaydfox]

Indeed. Yet no matter how inspiring and long-term the goal, it must be achievable within a reasonable span of time. Practically, it is useful to review the mission statement every 3-5 years. Therefore, a mission statement should have a core element of pragmatism both in time and scope.

Every 3-5 years. If you're serious, then you don't "get it". Think of the Long Now and other organizations that have sprung up in the last decade or two. These orgs are very explicit about the short-sighted nature of how companies and societies think.

You can't take the long view if you're setting your sights 3-5 years out. Colonizing Mars, let alone the moons of Saturn, would be impossible with such short-sightedness. Curing aging would indeed be difficult, without proper long-term planning for the consequences (good and bad).

And the mission of ImmInst goes way beyond just curing aging.

Look, I agree that ImmInst should put more emphasis on such short term goals as curing aging, and even just some of the shorter term goals and projects that will help us build towards the eventual cure for aging. But that's not the same thing as turning ImmInst into SensInst or SensForum or wherever some of the participants in this discussion would see this place go.

The mission is a beacon to people, especially younger people who have the faintest suspicion that radical life extension (thousands, millions of years and beyond) is possible, that a form of potential immortality itself may be possible. Yes, the movement's small, and yes, it's hamstrung by religious wackos and mystical associations, but that's no reason to not stay true to the principle and the mission.

We "own" immortality, and in the years and decades ahead, we can change the connotations and perceptions of immortality. Not for all of society, and especially not for the religious portion, but as atheism and agnosticism gain footing around the world, we can help inspire a non-religious, non-mystical vision of "practical" immortality.

[Karomesis]

I like the mock up of the front page, but to be honest with you, I see an overemphasis of the great minds here on imminst.

While i feel it is important to stand as a bastion of logic and inquiry in a sea of misinformation and idealism, the average surfer coming here will be intimidated by the exacting science of papers like the ones listed, that's not to say do away with them all, but rather, possibly offer some everyday ideas and ramifications people can relate to as well and see life extension as not just the recluse of the ivory tower of academia, But a growing feild of people working very hard toward a common goal.

By promoting it as an idea that people can realte to, the viral nature of significant breakthroughs can be better understood, I'm thinking maybe a countdown clock to escape velocity? showing that there are X number of years till we're adding more life than we're losing, people can relate to that, and I think it will wake many up from the slumber of ignorance and complacency they seem to be in with reguards to life extension in general. [thumb]

[DJS]

(1) Out of all of the possibilities presented so far, I like Open Ended Lfespans (OEL) the best.

(2) I more or less agree with Jay regarding the need for super-long term goals.

(3) The name issue, uggh, we all have our opinions by now, don't we? I am one of those who is truly conflicted on the name issue, but all one has to do is make a cursory head count and realize that the support simply isn't there for such a drastic change. Defining your terms as proposed by Aubrey, Jay, and others seems like the most feasible approach at this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duke

wacky-ville.

What constitutes "wacky" is a point of view. If the reductionist agenda within neuroscience is ultimately successful then disagreeing with substrate independence would make one a complete wack-job.

Disagreeing on time frames is one thing, but to disagree in principle is quite another.

(Over all though Duke, I like your pragmatic approach to things. Your lack of a deeper philosophical perspective can be frustrating at times, but you make up for this deficiency with excellent tactical skills.)

[Mind]

I have no problems putting "friendly and easy to digest" graphics/links/slogans on the front page and making the forum focus on biological anti-aging.....just don't give up on cryonics, AI, and, physics discussions. We can put the best biology and gerontology forums fronnt and center and then have one link to "other stuff", but we should keep the "other stuff". Most of our current members have diverse interests, and we can help other organizations.

Some of you may not remember, but Imminst helped stave off a legislative regulatory attack on ALCOR. We swamped the Arizona legislature with calls, emails, and letters and the legislation was dropped. This is an example of something Imminst members have helped out with, that is not related to biological anti-aging research. Since we are currently an advocacy group, it worked well. Of course, we can do more and different things....we are getting there.

Oh yeah, not to beat a dead horse, but one of the main reasons Imminst was able to hold a conference, maintain forums, publish a book, and produce a film was Bruce. We currently have no full time person(s) to carry out specific tasks/projects. If we had a couple employees/fundraisers, a lot of stuff would get done real fast and membership would continue to increase (even without a new look).

[DJS]

Mind

I have no problems putting "friendly and easy to digest" graphics/links/slogans on the front page and making the forum focus on biological anti-aging.....just don't give up on cryonics, AI, and, physics discussions. We can put the best biology and gerontology forums fronnt and center and then have one link to "other stuff", but we should keep the "other stuff". Most of our current members have diverse interests, and we can help other organizations.

I 100% agree with this statement.

Some of you may not remember, but Imminst helped stave off a legislative regulatory attack on ALCOR. We swamped the Arizona legislature with calls, emails, and letters and the legislation was dropped. This is an example of something Imminst members have helped out with, that is not related to biological anti-aging research. Since we are currently an advocacy group, it worked well. Of course, we can do more and different things....we are getting there.

You know, I completely forgot about that Alcor episode. Was there really a direct correlation between our online efforts and a cessation of the legislation? If so, that is very impressive.

[Karomesis]

I think the "shock level" originators had the right idea, let them slowly become acclimated to life extension and in due time you can mention jupiter brains and the transcendence of all the laws of physics. [:o]

unfortunately, the majority of the citizenry do not have the mental faculties or the desire to understand such all encompassing concepts. But I firmly believe they all want to be young and healthy in the here and now. If we continually demonstrate that it is possible through mammal studies and correlation with advancements that have already happened, we're halfway there.

When I mention life extension to regular people, i start them out with an appetizer like studies on mice and people that live to be over 110. Then if they continue to show interest(which they usually do) I mention that technology is moving faster now than 20 years ago, and the projections call for even more advancements in the near future. I've managed to win a few minds over using this acclimation method. Which is what I argue for the front page at imminst, a general progression of complexity ending in the highly advanced philosophical and scientific discussions that take place here.

[Mind]

You know, I completely forgot about that Alcor episode. Was there really a direct correlation between our online efforts and a cessation of the legislation? If so, that is very impressive.

All I got was anecdotal feedback from Alcor and some other people on the ground in AZ. They heard us, but no certainty as to the deciding factor.

[doug123]

Also Duke there are no kings here and there never will be as long as we hold to core values. 

What do you think you can do to advance research into technologies to extend and enhance quality of human life meanwhile keeping to your values?

[Lazarus Long]

Adam why do you think it is necessary to have autocrats to meets these objectives?

We don't need authority, we need clarity, unanimity and commitment.

That doesn't come from a central authority it comes from a common awareness and commitment. I actually have been enjoying this debate over pragmatics because in fact I agree with much of what Duke argues and have already said so on the record before he even joined.

What I disagree with is that we should sacrifice long term for short term objectives exclusively. What I suspect is that we need a practical balance between the two.

[doug123]

(Over all though Duke, I like your pragmatic approach to things.  Your lack of a deeper philosophical perspective can be frustrating at times, but you make up for this deficiency with excellent tactical skills.)

I might disagree about Duke's philosophical perspective. I can relate with many of Duke's comments and observations maybe because I often try to take a third party perspective to matters to find ways for an idea to have maximum impact.

To see ourselves as others see us is a most salutary gift. Hardly less important is the capacity to see others as they see themselves.

I think Duke has the goals of ImmInst in mind; and I think I see some of what he sees...the long term effect is his emphasis. We need ImmInst to support research into technologies that can extend human lifespan or enhance the quality of human life, not talk about it.

[DJS]

Lazarus

What I disagree with is that we should sacrifice long term for short term objectives exclusively. What I suspect is that we need a practical balance between the two.

Yes, that's the heart of the matter.

[doug123]

The king comment was just part of your sentence that had the word "values." I could have just used the word "values" in the quote...

I'm not saying we need a king!

I am suggesting we place our values in operational terms. Discussions of our contemplations might bear no fruit because the same words and concepts often mean different things to different individuals.

[Lazarus Long]

The counter point to Duke was in relation to his comment of:

If I were king, I'd..."

The point I was making Adam about core values refers to the commitment to the democratic process which is messy, difficult, often frustrating for all involved and vastly preferable to all other methods of resolving disputes such as we are experiencing. We do not have one core value above all others except that we promote maximum life extension.

I don't expect some king of man or sun to come here and play savior. In fact I instinctively mistrust anyone that wants the job and makes promises of salvation. However that never stopped this approach from being very pragmatically effective at separating fools from their money by exploiting the desperate.

It also no matter how successful in the end at achieving some positive result in spite of its shallow and empty promise ever made such an approach anything but corrupt.

[doug123]

Our preparations for forward motion are well structured.

We should use the database of past negotiations from which to propel the Institute's goals from talk to action.

We have, as a basis for forward motion:

1. The ImmInst 100 Pledge, Taking ImmInst To The Next Level

2. ImmInst Documentary Film Project, Discussion

3. ImmInst - Proactive Material, Flyer - Web Logo - Survey - Merchandise

I have not reviewed all of these topics and noticed a pattern yet -- if there are any others, someone please link to them. I have to get going, see you guys around later. Peace.

[eternaltraveler]

"advocacy and research on the attainment of indefinite lifespan(s?)" sounds like a winner to me. We can fine tune as needed.

For now I move that we change the front page now to reflect what seems to be a strong consensus, and move on to more meaty matters. Such as fund raising and project design. If there is discord over the slogan we can do as reason suggests and simply change everything below the bar for now.

[DJS]

Sorry to be the dissenter here, but I really don't like the use of "indefinite"

advocacy and research on the attainment of indefinite lifespan(s?)

Isn't this suppose to be a catchy slogan? The average person reading this would go, "advocacy and reseaaaabblahblablahblblahblah.....yawn."


I feel like the neo-front page is getting worse rather than better. Also - when you keep changin the trial layout you are voiding the validity of the poll. Half of the people who voted, voted on the original alterations. Now things are being changed repeatedly. The results of this poll no longer hold the same weight with me.
-----------------------------------
The new page is lopsided. There's a big gap to the left of the right column. The text and images are still way too small. They need to be enlarged (take a look at the betterhumans home page to get an idea of the font I have in mind). And there is still the issue of possibly having an active topics list in either the left or right column.

Sorry if I'm coming off as overly critical, but I sincerely don't think we are ready yet to move forward with implementing the new layout.

[Bruce Klein]

I will shortly put the page up for a vote in the Full Member section as it stands (barring minor modifications), and a choice can be made between the old and the new. In this way we can accelerate implementation (or not).

Harold, we should eventually have a Full Membership vote. However, there are separate issues which need to be considered independently... such as slogan, frontpage message (and/or mission) and layout. Thus, I suggest we invest a bit more time to hash through all of these valuable ideas.

[zoolander]

Duke said:

Yes, I've come on strong, but not because I'm trying to be mean -- I am trying to wake people up here to the truth. It's my nature, perhaps unfortunately, to be blunt and emphasize the negative. To be clear, I think this place can be much more than it is. I like Immisnt, but I don't see that it has much to do with conquering involuntary death.

I thought you were being unnecessarily aggressive. However after reading the above reply I agree with your approach. Sorry about the label but it's a very "Buddhist" approach.

Duke said:

Create a free invitation-only discussion area solely for the top researchers in this field, where no other member can see. Scientists like to discuss their ideas, but only where they know others cannot see. I've seen this work spectacularly well in other industries, and in fact, I helped create such a discussion area that's by-far the biggest in the game industry. Again, this makes Immist a player. Also, many of these scientist will show curiosity about the regular discussion areas and likely participate. Good for us all.

This is an awesome idea. Nice one Duke. I'm an aging researcher and know quite a few prominent aging researchers here in Australia. I could help set this up. We would need to do a few things first:
1. Set up the science area and allow on scientists or experts in the field entry. I know that sounds counter-productive to not include normal members but I am pretty sure that there are a few people on my potential invite list that would leave almost immeditely if the topics became unscientific. On that note, I would have to be on my best behaviour and would most likely shut the hell up
2. Set up the new forum area in a suitable fashion. I could stimulate interest in a minimum of 10 scientists. It would be wise to set up the area with thought provoking questions. It would also be a good idea to minimise any so-called "kookiness". We could mold this area as an on-line versions of the GRG list.
3. We could stimulate interest from people on the GRG list

[zoolander]

My friend said that a comical slogan would be

"Life begins at 140"