• 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.


- - - - -

mockup of imminst front page


  • Please log in to reply
209 replies to this topic

#61 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 27 June 2006 - 11:33 PM

Whats the font your using in the header Prometheus? Is it myriad pro

I like the new minimal top border although. I think you are doing a great job prometheus. Now who's the polymath?

I try and catch up with you this weekend and lend you some of my graphic design texts. That's if you need 'em. You are really doing a fine job

#62

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 28 June 2006 - 02:22 AM

Right on the money zoo..
Knowing how to use dreamweaver does not a polymath make.. :)

Bruce, you are the founder and this is your child. However, as a parent of a precocious 11 year old I can relate to when it is right to cocoon and when it is better to let her explore and connect with new concepts. Imminst is now at the stage when she could benefit with broadening her horizons in one sense (increase mainstream appeal) whilst becoming more pragmatic in another (adopt a more scientifically grounded slant). If you consider the mission which you created then also think of the many ways that one can achieve this, there are fundamentally 3 options: bio/technological interventions, forward time travel via cryogenic suspension and faith in a singularity event.

I view the singularity event as something that is so disconnected from any technology or knowledge we have today that it is presently in the realm of highly speculative science. Cryogenic suspension is, of course, better than total obliteration yet the final outcome -- reanimation following suspension -- similarly relies upon speculative technologies. Biological interventions exist today that enable us to immortalize cells in the lab. Shortly we shall be able to do so with ordered collections of cells in the form of tissues and later organs. Advances in stem cell biology indicate that there is untapped potential in regenerative medicine to treat aging. This is real tangible science that is occuring and being reported by labs around the world both in terms of research and clinical aplications.

#63 doug123

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

Posted 28 June 2006 - 04:51 AM

When is the new front page going up? It's totally badass.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#64 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 28 June 2006 - 04:54 AM

I agree Adam. I really like the colors. IMO, the layout is almost perfect.

I have the new front page book marked so each time I come to imminst.org I enter via the new front page.

:)

#65 doug123

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

Posted 28 June 2006 - 07:39 AM

I finally finished reading most of the comments in this topic. The first day I started where Duke said this:

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.


If we want to achieve our goals quickest, we need to at least appeal to fence sitters. If they laugh at us, they'll leave before a making thorough investigation of the content here. Certain parts of this forum are certainly of an entirely different intellectual level than others...

Don't underestimate Duke's point. If anyone knows how to attract interest to an odd theme, it'd be duke. He's been *quite* successful at marketing much more radical concepts than Immortality. Dudes commonly spend $50 on a *single* computer game and their hardward cost typically $1,000 or more to be able to catch up with the latest MS DirectX technologies, vertex shaders, pixel fill rates, etc. And if anything, the video game market will also bring us closer to virtual reality MUCH quicker -- and technological advances in this area might accelerate some AI technologies.

You don't have to "move to the middle" to get Immortality into the mainstream. You just need the right connection between Immortality and Mainstream such that it can catch interest.

From what I see, Duke might be telling you that in the digital world, this site, in its current state, is unable to be taken seriously by many in their first glance. They look away and something else seems more interesting and when they look back, they might even look away again.

Conquering the blight of involuntary death -- as a statement -- is fine. There might be better ways to achieve this goal -- and perhaps much much quicker, if the same idea can be expressed in a more "fashionable" sense.

I also really like brizzadizza'si idea of an alternate mission statement.

Offer Full Members members health care services in the health fora (and beyond!): blood testing, an optional health insurance plan, discounts on dietary supplements, with a centralized marketing approach.


My very first exposure to immortality was via LifeExtension. I thought "Hey! This is exciting. I've always dreamed about immortality, and there's an established group out there that has a magazine! Fabulous!"

I didn't examine it too carefully, but went ahead and purchased a membership / magazine subscription. When I received my first issue, I was shocked! All of the "articles" read like late-night infomercials pumping LEF's various supplements. What I thought would be on the order of Scientific American for immortalists was little more than an advertising vehicle for a supplements company.

I've seen you post this idea a few times, nootropikamil, and I'm sure it's a good, sound business idea. I just don't know if the market needs another LEF. If there's a need for another supplement company -- then someone should do it. And they should be solely focused on profits. I'm not sure if that's in line with our goals.


Now, selling the forum out to the highest bidder for banner space has potential to fill the forum up with a bunch of interesting screen names who have sudden enthusiasm for discussing the content of the banners and their relevance to Immortality may often be nil. ImmInst should continue to associate with organizations the same goal. A banner for the Pat Robertson Leg Press might invite Pat Robertson types to the forum to discuss his skills, etc and have zero relevance to Immortality or Life Extension.

As much as LEF's magazine is one big marketing approach...there's nothing wrong with marking itself. AOR is a for profit company who's promotional material I have never found to be intellectually offensive.

Offering solutions to consumers in the form of discount health care services (blood tests, even optional group insurance plans for US members), medicines, supplements, etc. are ways to show the membership that you see their needs. How are you supposed to live forever if you don't even have access to modern medicine?

Just thoughts. I got to get to bed.

#66 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 28 June 2006 - 07:40 AM

If you consider the mission which you created...

To be sure, the Constitution and Mission were drafted and voted on by members after considerable deliberation.

Posted on Dec 12 2003 by Bruce Klein:
The Constitution has taken quite some time to bring to fruition, but I think it has been worth it. The document has been revised a number of times by many talented individuals. I'll try to list a few here, (let me know if I've forgotten you):

Thanks to Caliban, Reason, Lazarus Long, thefirstimmortal, Mind, Michael Anissimov, Kevin Perrott, Chestnut, (breath) Chubtoad, Jace Tropic and others for your help.
Ref.

Also, reference Constitution discussion and votes:

http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=188&t=2797 (Leadership)
http://www.imminst.o...=ST&f=92&t=1853 (Leadership)
http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=142&t=2569
http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=142&t=2117
http://www.imminst.o...=ST&f=63&t=1702
http://www.imminst.o...=ST&f=63&t=1378
http://www.imminst.o...=ST&f=56&t=2212
http://www.imminst.o...ST&f=113&t=2150

I view the singularity event as something that is so disconnected from any technology or knowledge we have today that it is presently in the realm of highly speculative science.

The Constitution was drafted in a way that it does not mention specific technologies. Thus, it seems important that we remain neutral by not highlighting any one technology (ex: biology) in our creative.

However, creating links on the homepage to forum topics which cover updated discussion on biology, cryoincs, AI, etc is very much a good idea.

#67

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 28 June 2006 - 08:47 AM

Such history... And such libertarian emphasis above all else... I would not have done too well in those times :) It is remarkable to see the evolution and it helps to place things in perspective.


Do we wish to be a community of wishful thinkers who occasionaly will post the odd pubmed reference, romantically indulging in escapist fantasy or do we want to accelerate into and control our future?

My view of Imminst is that it has the potential to bring together a vast group of people who share a common belief that they need not yield to a biologically limited lifespan and that they live at a time where that may soon be possible. The question is do we bring these people together to discuss their hopes and fears or to catalyse this belief into a practical reality? If it is the latter, as the mission implies, then we should be seeking to engage those with knowledge and resources. The attention of such people is not easily won. Their values centre around principles of credibility, structure, purpose and planning.

Therefore we must ask ourselves, what byline to describe the Institute would resonate more with such practical people - "For Infinite Lifespans" or "The Society for Biological Immortalism", or some such? You see, if the word Immortality or Infinite is used, it must be qualified so that there are no supernatural or religious connotations.

Let us explore a suitable byline that can accomplish this... comments?

#68 DJS

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

Posted 28 June 2006 - 09:03 AM

I was thinking "For indefinite lifespans", but that's not very catchy, now is it?

Despite my love affair with philosophy I must agree with Prometheus on the specifics. There are plenty of Transhumanist organizations out there with their private mailing lists and philosophical debates, but there are very few, correction, none that have committed to concrete action as of yet. I'd be in favor of making this institute more grounded in the biological sciences.

How about this one:


ImmInst.org
First Things First

#69 Kalepha

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 0

Posted 28 June 2006 - 09:32 AM

Do we wish to be a community of wishful thinkers who occasionaly will post the odd pubmed reference, romantically indulging in escapist fantasy or do we want to accelerate into and control our future?

First Things First

Alas, if only all solutions were a single visible peak atop a continuously positively smooth hill.

#70 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 28 June 2006 - 10:29 AM

Well said prometheus and I could not agree more.

It's time to knock the fence out from underneith our philosophical butts.

We need to bridge the gap between current science and what we can see is achievable. For those that are familar and up to date with the current happenings re. aging science and longevity/immortality the current statement probably seems very realistic. However, for the general population immortality or even living until 150 years old in this lifetime seems like a fairytale.

The words "Biology" and "Biological" are realistic.

Here are some other word I beleive to be realistic and accessible to the general population

Time
Clock
Ageless
Vigour
Youth
new era
Titties

Why don't we all ask our friends how they would phrase the science behind immortality. Or how they would describe our mission.

Edited by zoolander, 28 June 2006 - 10:51 AM.


#71 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 28 June 2006 - 10:43 AM

Can we at least say one thing for the record.....

The design layout of the new front page is acceptable and an improvement of what we have at the moment.

I think we can all agree on that one.

We just need to work out content

#72 DukeNukem

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

Posted 28 June 2006 - 03:13 PM

For Infinite Lifespans or For Indefinite Lifespans -- neither of these is catchy or memorable. And both contains words that are big concepts in and of themselves. From a marketing perspective, you want a catchy slogan that nails the issue with as few syllables as possible, and you want to follow K.I.S.S. if at all possible. For example, there's a reason Nike's slogan has stuck around 20 years, it's short, simple, effective, and memorable. Meanwhile Coke and McDonald's change their slogans every one or two years, because they never nail a keeper.

Off the top of my head, we want a slogan like, "Why die?" This is a pretty good example because questions have additional built in appeal, in that they force you to think. And they lead the person to consider an answer. And that's what this place can do, provide an answer (as to why we do not need to die). We've gotten so used to the idea that we will all die, and we're now at the point when that is no longer a given for a significant percentage of the population. Indeed, why die? When you may not have to. And given a choice, would you chose to live longer? Most people would.

This is the message that can appeal to fence-sitters. It works on a lower, more understandable level than the scientific high road this place currently reaches for. It's also a message that will sell better to the press. Death is no longer a given, and more and more of us will have a choice. We used to live in an age of die when? But we're about to enter an age of why die?

#73 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 28 June 2006 - 03:30 PM

Duke, "Why die?" is short and sweet but is focused on a negative. Also, there seems to be a dichotomy between all our reasons for restructing the homepage... while we all want more members, Duke wants to appeal to a broader public, Harold wants to appeal to academia and Bruce just wants appeal to himself :)

#74 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 28 June 2006 - 03:34 PM

Harold, it's worth mentioning that the Singularity Institute has been successful in both bringing members to its event (more than 2,000 at their last conference in May 2006) and raising funds (more than 300K in the last 6 months) even though their name is such.

Thus, while I think tweaking our homepage is worthwhile, I don't think branding and such is holding us back from real progress... what's holding us back is effective fundraising.

#75 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 28 June 2006 - 03:38 PM

Also, if we keep striving to make ourselves more mainstream, we will have to start competing with more mainstream life extension organization for fundraising. We currently have the extreme position which appeals to more extreme and successful entrepreneurial individuals. I found this to be so when raising funds for the ImmInst film and conference.

#76 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 28 June 2006 - 04:13 PM

On solution for the byline (for infinite lifespans, etc) question is to create a forum topic, ask for suggestions for two months, and then create a vote for the top 5. This action should be handled by the Chair.

#77 Brainbox

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

Posted 28 June 2006 - 04:31 PM

Our realm is theoretical in its essence, but practical implications can already be found in the health related sub-groups.

Maybe it would be a good idea to have 2 sub goals? Or goal and by-line? One accounting for the philosophical and theoretical aims and one for the more practical oriented aims? This could elevate the health sub forums to a better general practical LE or immortality sub forum. In this approach, we would not address the academic versus mainstream issue itself, but rather address a direct spin-off that is produced by it.

But possibly this is a theoretical suggestion in itself since I don’t know (yet?) how to put it into action.

Any agrees, disagrees or idea’s?

#78 DukeNukem

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

Posted 28 June 2006 - 04:53 PM

"Why die" was just a brain fart. By no means do I think it's the best slogan we can come up with -- it was just an example.

I also do not see how toning down the language to make it easier for the average Jill to understand moves us more toward the middle, as some have put it. When I get a chance later, I will take a stab at rewriting some of the text that I think is too complicated.

#79 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 28 June 2006 - 07:04 PM

Thanks for all your thoughts and input Duke.

How about this for a brain fart slogan: "MORE LIFE"

Anyway, like I have said a couple times before, the people the institute has attracted so far are lively, diverse, intelligent, and open minded. We definitely want to keep attracting similar people, hopefully in greater numbers. I know the saying is "perception is reality" and the name of the institute gives people an instant perception of what it is all about, but all you have to do is barely scratch the surface of this site to find out it is not anywhere near a cult. It is not stocked with wierdos. That is why I have suggested a facelift instead of a "teardown and rebuild" approach. If we can make the front page more attractive (great job so far Prometheus), and do a little rewording with the slogan, (and other marketing and outreach and etc...) we may start attracting more members without having abandon the idealism that drives us forward.

#80

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 28 June 2006 - 08:20 PM

Duke, "Why die?" is short and sweet but is focused on a negative.  Also, there seems to be a dichotomy between all our reasons for restructing the homepage... while we all want more members, Duke wants to appeal to a broader public, Harold wants to appeal to academia and Bruce just wants appeal to himself :)


Bruce, when you decided to call this organisation an "Institute", which by definition from the Oxford American Dictionary is:

a society or organization having a particular object or common factor, esp. a scientific, educational, or social one : the Institute for Advanced Studies | a research institute.


... what were you intending? Of course there must be appeal for academics and scientists (and the entrepreneurs who will seek their advice).

We currently have the extreme position which appeals to more extreme and successful entrepreneurial individuals.


Despite the fact that I don't agree with the latter, I'm glad you admitted this. Another way of putting it is that we have intentionally restricted our appeal and that, for the record, is contrary to the mission.

#81 stephen

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

Posted 28 June 2006 - 08:51 PM

On solution for the byline (for infinite lifespans, etc) question is to create a forum topic, ask for suggestions for two months, and then create a vote for the top 5.  This action should be handled by the Chair.


I second this idea. I like the appeal and brevity of "Why Die?" (can see the banner ads now...) It's still good to get as much input as possible in a visible thread.

#82 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 28 June 2006 - 09:02 PM

Despite the fact that I don't agree with the latter, I'm glad you admitted this. Another way of putting it is that we have intentionally restricted our appeal and that, for the record, is contrary to the mission.

Harold, to be clear, ImmInst is currently explicit about our position for a reason. As posted earlier, and as agreed to by Mind here and many others who ratified the Constitution in 2003, staking claim to our (as Reason's puts it) Suitable Outrageous Extreme is a benefit to the Institute and life extension as a whole. The Institute has only grown stronger, as indicated by our successful projects and membership, over the past four years.

Watering down things is likely to alienate hard-core members who actually get stuff done and may confuse first-time members who will eventually feel misguided once they understand our ultimate goal.

#83 quadclops

  • Guest
  • 316 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 28 June 2006 - 09:02 PM

Great work Prometheus! The Frontpage is brighter visually, more interesting, and better worded! [thumb]

Question, would it be possible to put the Login section on the Frontpage? Seems more convenient that way.

#84 doug123

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

Posted 28 June 2006 - 09:10 PM

Duke, "Why die?" is short and sweet but is focused on a negative.  Also, there seems to be a dichotomy between all our reasons for restructing the homepage... while we all want more members, Duke wants to appeal to a broader public, Harold wants to appeal to academia and Bruce just wants appeal to himself :)


Duke is stating the obvious about the perception of many individuals first taking a look around ImmInst. Every single header in this forum has the statement "for infinite lifespans," therefore, every time an individual peruses through this site s/he is forced to digest this slogan. That's why I suggest, at least, eliminate any slogan from the header if you don't want to scare people away...

Then again: "Why die?" does sound way too cool for this place... :) Duke's "brain fart" is pretty kick ass if you ask me. It may sound trendy, but if you want to make Immortality "Mainstream," that's exactly what you want.

How about this (ala "Got Milk?"): "got Immortality?" No, that's pretty cheesy.

If I can ever get this shirt I want made, I will have the question "why die?" integrated into it.

#85 doug123

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

Posted 28 June 2006 - 09:15 PM

Harold, to be clear, ImmInst is currently explicit about our position for a reason. As posted earlier, and as agreed to by Mind here and many others who ratified the Constitution in 2003, staking claim to our (as Reason's puts it) Suitable Outrageous Extreme is a benefit to the Institute and life extension as a whole.  The Institute has only grown stronger, as indicated by our successful projects and membership, over the past four years. 

Watering down things is likely to alienate hard-core members who actually get stuff done and may confuse first-time members who will eventually feel misguided once they understand our ultimate goal.


Watering the content of the site down won't happen if you just change the slogan or the look of the front page.

#86 Live Forever

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

Posted 28 June 2006 - 09:16 PM

Harold, to be clear, ImmInst is currently explicit about our position for a reason. As posted earlier, and as agreed to by Mind here and many others who ratified the Constitution in 2003, staking claim to our (as Reason's puts it) Suitable Outrageous Extreme is a benefit to the Institute and life extension as a whole.  The Institute has only grown stronger, as indicated by our successful projects and membership, over the past four years. 

Watering down things is likely to alienate hard-core members who actually get stuff done and may confuse first-time members who will eventually feel misguided once they understand our ultimate goal.

Well said, Bruce. I hadn't seen Reason's post on that before, but it makes a lot of sense when you think about it. As I stated in the previous thread on this topic, the internet is a big place and there is more than enough room for other sites of a more "moderate" persuasion, if one were so inclined to create them. However, I feel as if ImmInst is filling a niche quite nicely that is not being filled by anyone else.

Now, do not confuse me saying that with saying we should not change (update websites, fund new projects, etc.), but just to say that our philiosophical approach, being somewhat outside the mainstream, is not a problem. The Institute was founded as such, and if someone wanted a more "watered-down" approach, there is room for that type of website/group as well.

#87 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 28 June 2006 - 09:21 PM

Watering the content of the site down won't happen if you just change the slogan or the look of the front page.

Quite happy to change the slogan and look of the front page after allowing members the opportunity to deliberate and vote. As suggested earlier, creating a forum topic to suggest new slogans (or no slogan) running for 60 days and then voting for one of the top 5 should be worthwhile.

#88 roof01

  • Guest
  • 41 posts
  • 1

Posted 28 June 2006 - 09:24 PM

I know, I'm just a lowly basic member :) .. but is it an option to have multiple sites for different audiences? Or is this detrimental to credibility?

#89 doug123

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

Posted 28 June 2006 - 09:26 PM

The philosophical approach here is not really as radical as you make it seem. In my view, Immortality is already a pretty mainstreamable idea. If you desire to achieve this goal in short order, disregarding the appeal of the front line message will only hurt your chances at achieving your goal. So what is more important: achieving the goal itself or talking about how extreme our ideas are in comparison to others?

What is the goal? To achieve Immortality or to worry about ensuring that ImmInst caters exclusively to the "Suitable Outrageous Extreme?" These extremists might be shooting themselves in the foot by not making their ideas expressed in a realistic way such that a layman can understand them enough to follow through and make a thorough investigation of the ideas expressed here.

Doctors can tell their patients to take a medicine twice daily, or say BID. If the doctor wishes the patient to understand what BID means, s/he could start by saying take it twice a day...then later explaining that BID means the same thing.

Edited by nootropikamil, 28 June 2006 - 09:58 PM.


#90 doug123

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

Posted 28 June 2006 - 09:28 PM

I know, I'm just a lowly basic member :) .. but is it an option to have multiple sites for different audiences? Or is this detrimental to credibility?


Credibility is a fairly loose term.

Extending human lifespan to the infinite is hard to establish scientific credibility for at this point. Aubrey is the only scientist (that I know of) that is fighting for our goals on the front line and establishing credibility for the mission.

To most scientists, Immortality sounds like a pipe dream.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users