Here is the first iteration of an improved front page for imminst:
http://www.imminst.o...x/index1642.php
Note that the emphasis is on bringing credibility to the institute.
LongeCityAdvocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans
Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.
mockup of imminst front page
Started by
, Jun 24 2006 01:50 PM
209 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
- 19,042 posts
- 2,000 ₮
- Location:Wausau, WI
- ✔
Posted 24 June 2006 - 02:25 PM
Good for a first iteration. Promoting the science and available media is our best bet.
I personally do not like the word "manifesto", but maybe others like it. If there is a top-line statement like the one you have presented, maybe that should be voted upon, since it would claim to be the viewpoint of everyone here, or at least the leadership.
I personally do not like the word "manifesto", but maybe others like it. If there is a top-line statement like the one you have presented, maybe that should be voted upon, since it would claim to be the viewpoint of everyone here, or at least the leadership.
#3
-
- Guardian Founder
- 8,794 posts
- 242 ₮
- Location:United States
Posted 24 June 2006 - 03:58 PM
Looks good...
May try to keep all pictures the same size at 60x70 px
Following up w/ Mind's idea...
Certainly aging is an important threat now, but it will not always be this way. Thus, maintaining our focus on the mission...
...and then focusing on solutions like Anti-aging, Cryonics, AI, Transhumanism, etc may be the best strategy to ensure immortality and maintain our broad community.
May try to keep all pictures the same size at 60x70 px
Following up w/ Mind's idea...
Certainly aging is an important threat now, but it will not always be this way. Thus, maintaining our focus on the mission...
...and then focusing on solutions like Anti-aging, Cryonics, AI, Transhumanism, etc may be the best strategy to ensure immortality and maintain our broad community.
sponsored ad
-
- Advert
#4
-
- Life Member, Guardian
- 8,116 posts
- 242 ₮
- Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York
- ✔
Posted 24 June 2006 - 04:17 PM
I like the new layout. It is definitely more eye friendly and not so linear.
However I wonder if we shouldn't just go all the way with the manifesto and call it a disease and not a phenomena. This is after all the way to frame the debate that calls for a *cure*.
The position is controversial but also consistent for us to take. In that vein how about this?
Aging is not an inevitability for the human condition, it is a disease that can be cured through medical and technological intervention.
If we don't want to take the extreme position of claiming it can be cured then how about at least staking out the position that it can be effectively treated and prevented instead?
This position has routinely forced the debate into an analysis of *should* this be done rather than can this be done by even the most moderate adversaries and definitely the more strident. However from a debate perspective this is an admission of defeat from our adversaries as it acknowledges implicitly that it CAN be done allowing us to seize the high ground and bring the battle to the *enemies of life.*
However I wonder if we shouldn't just go all the way with the manifesto and call it a disease and not a phenomena. This is after all the way to frame the debate that calls for a *cure*.
The position is controversial but also consistent for us to take. In that vein how about this?
Aging is not an inevitability for the human condition, it is a disease that can be cured through medical and technological intervention.
If we don't want to take the extreme position of claiming it can be cured then how about at least staking out the position that it can be effectively treated and prevented instead?
This position has routinely forced the debate into an analysis of *should* this be done rather than can this be done by even the most moderate adversaries and definitely the more strident. However from a debate perspective this is an admission of defeat from our adversaries as it acknowledges implicitly that it CAN be done allowing us to seize the high ground and bring the battle to the *enemies of life.*
#6
-
- Lurker
- 1 ₮
Posted 24 June 2006 - 05:56 PM
Mind, I chose the term "Manifesto" so that it does not conflict with the mission statement which overrides any other charter. It is a way to diminish the appearance of kookiness without swaying from the founding directive. For the average person our mission statement sounds impossibly ambitious to the point of absurdity -- we may as well be saying that our goal is to be as gods. Not the sort of message that either instills hope not encourages serious consideration by prospective funders..
BJ, I consider it part and parcel of the mission to connect with the community. In this light we need to speak in terms which can offer broad resonance. Escape velocity will only be reached by a biological solution -- therefore our efforts must focus on this effort. The signs in the media that are gaining accretion are stem cell biology and genetics. The community mindset is primed and expects a solution to emerge from these areas.
Laz, I agree it would be far too controversial to classify aging as a disease. We may as well classify evolution as a disease (in my view, because they are both connected with DNA damage they may as well be classified as diseases). We can still achieve our aims by more subtle means. Everyone fears the prospect of death but the tremendous energy contained there can only be released by not triggering peoples bullshit filters.
BJ, I consider it part and parcel of the mission to connect with the community. In this light we need to speak in terms which can offer broad resonance. Escape velocity will only be reached by a biological solution -- therefore our efforts must focus on this effort. The signs in the media that are gaining accretion are stem cell biology and genetics. The community mindset is primed and expects a solution to emerge from these areas.
Laz, I agree it would be far too controversial to classify aging as a disease. We may as well classify evolution as a disease (in my view, because they are both connected with DNA damage they may as well be classified as diseases). We can still achieve our aims by more subtle means. Everyone fears the prospect of death but the tremendous energy contained there can only be released by not triggering peoples bullshit filters.
#7
-
- Guest
- 6,214 posts
- 1 ₮
- Location:Atlanta, Georgia
Posted 24 June 2006 - 05:59 PM
After the unabomber, "manifesto" carries a sort of gut reaction as something that's bad, regardless of the truth of the matter... Maybe this is just my impression, though, but it seems like polotically or socially motivated wackos tend to have manifestos...
#10
-
- Guardian Founder
- 8,794 posts
- 242 ₮
- Location:United States
Posted 24 June 2006 - 07:44 PM
BJ, I consider it part and parcel of the mission to connect with the community. In this light we need to speak in terms which can offer broad resonance. Escape velocity will only be reached by a biological solution -- therefore our efforts must focus on this effort. The signs in the media that are gaining accretion are stem cell biology and genetics. The community mindset is primed and expects a solution to emerge from these areas.
Harold, part of connecting with the community is to maintain balance.
Also, escape velocity is not the exclusive domain of biology
If you notice from the book, conference, film and forums, there is a mix of topics (Anti-aging, AI, Cryonics, Transhumanism, etc) all of which fall under the ImmInst "umbrella.” For us to only highlight Anti-aging on the front-page above others would unnecessarily alienate.
Rather, it's better to focus on a philosophical point... like our mission statement currently, and then highlight projects and topics below.
#13
-
- Guest, Guardian
- 6,471 posts
- 155 ₮
- Location:Silicon Valley, CA
Posted 24 June 2006 - 08:32 PM
I think we should certainly keep our mission in tune with conquering the blight of involuntary death, however to those ends it may be wise to present a more scientific front in line with what Harold has proposed.
I do not like the term manifesto either; Thesis is one alternative, how about "declaration".
I do not like the term manifesto either; Thesis is one alternative, how about "declaration".
#15
-
- Life Member, Guardian
- 8,116 posts
- 242 ₮
- Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York
- ✔
Posted 24 June 2006 - 09:07 PM
I agree about the context of manifesto and think that either principle and/or declaration would be better, as in a Declaration of Principle.
And while I agree with Bruce (in principle)I also think that Harold reflects a more pragmatic approach in the short term. We do not need to lose sight of the many avenues to success but we do need to begin to make a more concentrated effort to create a cross over appeal predicated on scientific proposals. I think a biotech emphasis accomplishes this.
This statement of principle does not have to contradict or ignore the alternative pathways you mention Bruce but in order to be more effective I do think we should take a lead in making this a more physical paradigm that most people can relate to if we have any intention of avoiding being sidetracked by mystics or lost in algorithmic paradox.
What you propose certainly will remain a focus of the fora without doubt but currently most of our traffic is related to supplements and nootropes and that should at least indicate the popular preoccupation with physical aspects if nothing else does.
And yes Harold I do think it is somewhat of a risk to be too controversial but it is also a way to be ignored if we are not controversial enough. We can water down the message into platitudes and people will also ignore us.
The advantage of conflating disease and mutation is that they are pragmatically the same to the public mind and we can elaborate on the distinctions without contradicting ourselves. Cancer is a disease of mutation not pathogens and the distinction holds for other types of genetic disorder even though they are clearly not pathogenic.
Aging falls under that definition and getting people to see aging this way could be beneficial. It also stakes out a position that is not necessarily too radical while giving this organization a leadership position in respect to the political voice of the debate over the promotion of longevity tech. It also allows us to bracket our use of the term immortality in strictly scientific terms, perhaps removing a little of the kooky stain.
On the other hand, if we aren't controversial at all then I suspect we are doing something wrong.
And while I agree with Bruce (in principle)I also think that Harold reflects a more pragmatic approach in the short term. We do not need to lose sight of the many avenues to success but we do need to begin to make a more concentrated effort to create a cross over appeal predicated on scientific proposals. I think a biotech emphasis accomplishes this.
This statement of principle does not have to contradict or ignore the alternative pathways you mention Bruce but in order to be more effective I do think we should take a lead in making this a more physical paradigm that most people can relate to if we have any intention of avoiding being sidetracked by mystics or lost in algorithmic paradox.
What you propose certainly will remain a focus of the fora without doubt but currently most of our traffic is related to supplements and nootropes and that should at least indicate the popular preoccupation with physical aspects if nothing else does.
And yes Harold I do think it is somewhat of a risk to be too controversial but it is also a way to be ignored if we are not controversial enough. We can water down the message into platitudes and people will also ignore us.
The advantage of conflating disease and mutation is that they are pragmatically the same to the public mind and we can elaborate on the distinctions without contradicting ourselves. Cancer is a disease of mutation not pathogens and the distinction holds for other types of genetic disorder even though they are clearly not pathogenic.
Aging falls under that definition and getting people to see aging this way could be beneficial. It also stakes out a position that is not necessarily too radical while giving this organization a leadership position in respect to the political voice of the debate over the promotion of longevity tech. It also allows us to bracket our use of the term immortality in strictly scientific terms, perhaps removing a little of the kooky stain.
On the other hand, if we aren't controversial at all then I suspect we are doing something wrong.
#16
-
- Guest
- 6,214 posts
- 1 ₮
- Location:Atlanta, Georgia
Posted 24 June 2006 - 09:21 PM
Well, I think part of the issue here is statistics. For any one individual, either you're dead, or you're alive: that's binary.Also, escape velocity is not the exclusive domain of biology
Has a viable, nonbiological, hypothesis been proposed for achieving escape velocity?
However, for the masses, we look at things in percentages. Improving public health; slowing the rate of aging; extending life in the face of existing aging-related damage; developing a way to reverse a subset of the damage of aging; removing most of the damage of aging; periodiocally removing all aging-related damage, and/or preventing further accumulation of such damage... There will be a progression of increases in anti-aging technologies, with tiers of pricing and availablity, etc. Little improvements here, a little extra funding there, a few key patents here, a political ally there... There will be incremental gains, each of which will, on the balance, save lives, statistically. A few hundred lives saved here, a few million there, a few hundred thousand here, a few hundred million there... Incremental increases in funding, research, advocacy, etc., will have incremental gains on those statistics, and save real lives.
With the singularity, or a viable cryonics procedure that gets the public to jump on the bandwagon, etc... Some of these other options are much more binary in nature. Either they allow us to save billions of lives, or they don't.
It's much harder to picture an "escape velocity" that is anywhere similar in nature to the biological version. The biological escape velocity is like a shuttle ride: it pulls a few g's, and some people won't be able to handle it, but by and large, it will get us out of our current mortality well.
A singularity or other "near instant" cure for aging will be much more like being shot out of a cannon into space. It might be enough to get us off the ground and out of the mortality well, but a lot of people aren't going to survive the launch, (literally or at least socially/religiously/philosophically/politically). And once shot out of a cannon, you can't really steer as well as you can with the shuttle, where the throttle stays active and you can redirect the thrust. Once a singularity is sparked, we lose nearly all control.
I'm not saying that I'm against these "instant" scenarios, but they're much more binary in nature and much harder to try to "advocate" or "research" or fund. The biological approach is much more certain, including the timeframes involved. Despite Ben's and others best efforts, if they're wrong, the incremental progress has saved very few lives. If SENS ultimately isn't enough for escape velocity, at least it'll likely be close (perhaps buying a decade or two for the average middle class person), and will still save a lot of lives.
Anyway, I'm rambling...
#17
-
- Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
- 19,042 posts
- 2,000 ₮
- Location:Wausau, WI
- ✔
Posted 24 June 2006 - 09:53 PM
Don't take the manifesto thing sorely Prometheus. I think the word has a different connotation here in the U.S. than abroad. Like Don said, "Unabomber" and "Communist" are the first things that come to many american minds.
#18
-
- Guardian Founder
- 8,794 posts
- 242 ₮
- Location:United States
Posted 24 June 2006 - 10:27 PM
Ultimately, we are beholden to our members.
To this end, it may be best to open this discussion to at least Full Membership.
If there are no objections, and Harold agrees, perhaps we should move this topic or derivation there...
To this end, it may be best to open this discussion to at least Full Membership.
If there are no objections, and Harold agrees, perhaps we should move this topic or derivation there...
#19
-
- Life Member, Guardian
- 8,116 posts
- 242 ₮
- Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York
- ✔
Posted 24 June 2006 - 10:37 PM
No objection from me but it is Harold's' topic and it may be better to at least finish getting the input of all of leadership and perhaps a more concise set of options before we do.
#21
-
- Lurker
- 1 ₮
Posted 25 June 2006 - 01:36 AM
Elrond and Don, how about Laz's "Declaration of principle"? Sounds just as profound and does not have the American bad buzz that manifesto has.. Changed. We may consider a small mumber of other declarations and they can be cycled.
We are beholden to the mission first Bruce . Unfortunately all pragmatic steps to achieve it have not been seriously considered. In terms of advocacy and basic education the book, the conference and the film which still impresses me each time I see it do a great job of targetting some of the population. We need to increase our credibility backbone, however with greater effort of association and participation with the scientific community. Having said that, I have no hesitation in opening up this discussion for feedback from all members. I would want to hold off for a day or so however, to fine tune the preliminary concerns raised.
I know that you believe this with all your heart and you have put your money and your life were your mouth is with Novamente. I dont profess expertise on AI but I do have a neuroscience background and also went through the neural network & knowledge systems phase so I am happy to debate the prospect of a singularity publicly with you or one of your staff as I have SENS with Aubrey and Michael. Perhaps I am using the wrong term -- let's call it boostrap velocity -- an intervention that is sufficient to enable the majority of today's 60 year olds to survive until the next major paradigm shift.
Ultimately, we are beholden to our members.
To this end, it may be best to open this discussion to at least Full Membership.
If there are no objections, and Harold agrees, perhaps we should move this topic or derivation there...
We are beholden to the mission first Bruce
. Unfortunately all pragmatic steps to achieve it have not been seriously considered. In terms of advocacy and basic education the book, the conference and the film which still impresses me each time I see it do a great job of targetting some of the population. We need to increase our credibility backbone, however with greater effort of association and participation with the scientific community. Having said that, I have no hesitation in opening up this discussion for feedback from all members. I would want to hold off for a day or so however, to fine tune the preliminary concerns raised. escape velocity is not the exclusive domain of biology
I know that you believe this with all your heart and you have put your money and your life were your mouth is with Novamente. I dont profess expertise on AI but I do have a neuroscience background and also went through the neural network & knowledge systems phase so I am happy to debate the prospect of a singularity publicly with you or one of your staff as I have SENS with Aubrey and Michael. Perhaps I am using the wrong term -- let's call it boostrap velocity -- an intervention that is sufficient to enable the majority of today's 60 year olds to survive until the next major paradigm shift.
#22
-
- Lurker
- 1 ₮
Posted 25 June 2006 - 03:52 AM
Having given the "declaration of principle" further thought and the fact that we can have a rotating banner (random selection of one of a number of banners) it seems to me that it would be more congruent with our mission to have a DOP for cryogenics, the singularity and transhumanism. In this way we can cover all bases and not risk alienating our existing constituency.
Let's also discuss the other DOP's.
Let's also discuss the other DOP's.
#23
-
- Guardian Founder
- 8,794 posts
- 242 ₮
- Location:United States
Posted 25 June 2006 - 04:01 AM
I know that you believe this with all your heart and you have put your money and your life were your mouth is with Novamente. I dont profess expertise on AI but I do have a neuroscience background and also went through the neural network & knowledge systems phase so I am happy to debate the prospect of a singularity publicly with you or one of your staff as I have SENS with Aubrey and Michael. Perhaps I am using the wrong term -- let's call it boostrap velocity -- an intervention that is sufficient to enable the majority of today's 60 year olds to survive until the next major paradigm shift.
I'd quite enjoy participating in a public debate!
#27
-
- Guardian Founder
- 8,794 posts
- 242 ₮
- Location:United States
Posted 25 June 2006 - 06:01 AM
WTA calls them "Community Perspectives" which I think were voted on by Leadership:
http://transhumanism...A/perspectives/
http://transhumanism...A/perspectives/
#29
-
- Guest
- 2,008 posts
- 141 ₮
- Location:Dallas, Texas
Posted 25 June 2006 - 01:57 PM
Haven't read anyone's comments, just took a quick look at the new page. My first comment is that the Declaration of Principle #1 is not written for the layman, it is scientific gooble-de-gook, that makes this place look like nerds-ville.
Also, the Main Mission #1 of this institute is just plain stupid. Seriously. I cannot express this strong enough. It immediately paints this place as a joke.
Both of these can be rewritten is such a way as to not polarize fence-sitters against us within five seconds.
Also, the Main Mission #1 of this institute is just plain stupid. Seriously. I cannot express this strong enough. It immediately paints this place as a joke.
Both of these can be rewritten is such a way as to not polarize fence-sitters against us within five seconds.
#30
-
- Guardian Founder
- 8,794 posts
- 242 ₮
- Location:United States
Posted 25 June 2006 - 03:49 PM
Duke,
Just curious, are you talking about our mission statement? If so, could you elaborate on why you think its a joke?
Also, last I checked, fence-sitters are not the most dedicated lot... thus, should our goal really be to mold ourselves to the middle?
Just curious, are you talking about our mission statement? If so, could you elaborate on why you think its a joke?
Also, last I checked, fence-sitters are not the most dedicated lot... thus, should our goal really be to mold ourselves to the middle?
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
-
Bing (1)
