Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.
Vote: Old vs New Front Page, etc.
#61
Posted 01 July 2006 - 04:26 PM
*******
There is my 2cent contribution to the grammar and editing of this statement. I think you should all be commended at how the effort here is progressing, especially Prometheus for taking the initiative to make this happen. I greatly prefer the new model page as more user friendly than the old.
There is a lot of good synergy at work in this effort and I think that soon it will be ready to put in place.
#62
Posted 02 July 2006 - 12:12 AM
#63
Posted 02 July 2006 - 01:12 AM
That's beautiful Great job.
I'd do the new structure, with this at the top, before the "projects".
-Infernity
Agree... Nate, could you combine:
with:
orignial:
So the final version would be:
ImmInst.org
For Open-Ended Lifespans
sponsored ad
#64
Posted 02 July 2006 - 01:22 AM
While the average human lifespan has doubled, it's uncertain whether we've lengthened the maximum human lifespan yet... thus, it may be best to avoid this conflict in the leading statement.
Slight revision, including "Radical"
--
The Immortality Institute is a scientifically-minded community of people focused on advancing practical methods to achieve open-ended lifespans. Radical life extension may seem far-fetched to many, but it's not a fantasy. Driven by a convergence of numerous technological advancements, including Biotechnology, Nanotechnology and Artificial Intelligence, progress in life extension has already started. To accelerate this progress, the Institute hosts an online forum, publishes books, creates films, and sponsors conferences in order to advance global awareness.
--
#65
Posted 02 July 2006 - 01:50 AM
So comments:
1- I think the frontpage should say a few words re what ImmInst is about.
2- I'm sceptical about hyphenated words in motto's - that looks a bit helpless
3- No moving graphics! Yes it looks neat - once. After that its horribly annoying, and distracts the eye from taking in other content.
4 - Forums of Note -- not really forums, as we are talking about specific topics
5- Recent Papers -- I don't think we can maintain that section for long.
6- In short I'd suggest to merge 4+5 into a category like:
"selected current forum topics" - if you can update that every week to highlight the.. say 6 or 8 best topics... that would make for a very nice feature!
7 - "You are here" navigation bar is unnecessary on the frontpage
8- I'd put the 'media' into the righthand colum above the 'online' list. That list is not important to casual and first time visitors, but the three media are important core products. Book and film inform different audiences, and the conference link shows we are for real.
#66
Posted 02 July 2006 - 02:17 AM
Then why not state the obvious and take some credit where it is deserved and frankly should be encouraged. Do we not also promote other avenues of investigative research and if as an organization we had the funds to do more, wouldn't we?
Then add it as an example please.
While the average human lifespan has doubled, it's uncertain whether we've lengthened the maximum human lifespan yet... thus, it may be best to avoid this conflict in the leading statement.
Why?
It is a fact isn't it? and not in itself relevant to the more complex dilemma you are pondering. It is a fact that we can put out there and point to for the average person that makes the other ideas more tangible, practical and at least reasonable to investigate. I suspect it is a mistake to avoid controversy all the time. Some issues are worth fighting for and and we lose nothing by pointing out a historical fact like this and then going forward to debate Hayflick and others on more profound and subtle grounds.
First let the people come and be attracted to the basic premise of what is possible.
I think it is better to say this:
Significant progress in life extension began with the Industrial Revolution and the reality is that the human lifespan has already doubled in just the last few short centuries of technological progress.
And then make the reader realize that the trends didn't begin with us or even just in modern times but reflect a long term trend of progress that for many reasons ultimately only represents a *stage of progress*. This simple fact alone suggests possibility, from that comes hope and with hope comes participation with those the newcomer can respect.
We wouldn't be claiming something that isn't true nor taking credit for something we shouldn't. The doubling of the human lifespan didn't occur because of religion, and it did so in spite of politics. It occurred because of technological advancement. Saying that truth overtly suggests that more investment in such technology offers the possibility of more such advancement.
We need to take a stand we can live with in this introduction and not equivocate on the basic principles. Those that can understand and appreciate that stand will pick up the cause and stand with us. If we are too timid people might agree on the basics but also find no compelling reason to stay and join our effort here when so many competing distractions also hold their attention.
Mediocrity is the enemy IMHO.
Edited by Lazarus Long, 02 July 2006 - 03:24 AM.
#67
Posted 02 July 2006 - 03:15 AM
Bruce do we or do we not support and promote research like the MMP, SENS, etc?
The why not state the obvious and take some credit where it is deserved and frankly should be encouraged. Do we not also promote other avenues of investigative research and if as an organization we had the funds to do more, wouldn't we?
Most definitely we do and most definitely financially supporting key research must become one of our priorities once we can attract 1000+ members.
#68
Posted 02 July 2006 - 03:41 AM
I like this discussion and it looks like good things are coming out of it.
sorry I don't have time to comment more.
#69
Posted 02 July 2006 - 02:52 PM
Motto change should be a separate vote, among full members. I think "for infinite (or indefinite) lifespans" is alright. My alternative would be "More Life".
#70
Posted 02 July 2006 - 05:37 PM
A misleading fact, and in the context used, intentionally misleading. Bruce is right, maximum lifespan (top 1% anyway) has improved far less dramatically.Why?While the average human lifespan has doubled, it's uncertain whether we've lengthened the maximum human lifespan yet... thus, it may be best to avoid this conflict in the leading statement.
It is a fact isn't it? and not in itself relevant to the more complex dilemma you are pondering.
Not saying we shouldn't mention it, and I doubt we'll get called on it, and even if we did, the debate itself would be educational for any who cared.
But Bruce has a valid point, it is misleading, and intentionally so.
However, given your other arguments, perhaps just the addition of "average" would help settle things.And then make the reader realize that the trends didn't begin with us or even just in modern times but reflect a long term trend of progress that for many reasons ultimately only represents a *stage of progress*. This simple fact alone suggests possibility, from that comes hope and with hope comes participation with those the newcomer can respect.
We wouldn't be claiming something that isn't true nor taking credit for something we shouldn't. The doubling of the human lifespan didn't occur because of religion, and it did so in spite of politics. It occurred because of technological advancement. Saying that truth overtly suggests that more investment in such technology offers the possibility of more such advancement.
We need to take a stand we can live with in this introduction and not equivocate on the basic principles.
#71
Posted 02 July 2006 - 07:25 PM
-Infernity
#72
Posted 02 July 2006 - 07:33 PM
That means channelling the debates into directions we prefer as constructive and this approach does that. It is time to seize the high ground and bring the enemy to us. We cannot please everyone all the time and we need to recognize this is going to inevitably be a fight either to the death or to life.
Always playing catchup and allowing others to define the field of battle is a losing strategy for political conflict and this is not just a scientific struggle it is also a social contest of wills and power plays. Ignoring this fact won't make it go away. It also won't help us in our goals and might counter intuitively cause more harm than good.
This is where the risk aversion of many folks in this organization is a part of the problem I suspect. I find it fascinating that apparantly all those who are more interested in making aggressive changes to the organizational structure, methods and messages are also those that are much less risk averse personally according to their profiles.
Fascinating but not unpredictable.
#73
Posted 03 July 2006 - 01:05 AM
- everything below the title bar is something like 1000% better in terms of presenting the good stuff and using space far more effectively. Why isn't it up already?
- keep the present header, but put some sort of blurb on the right. "Advocacy and research to conquer the blight of involuntary death" is as good as anything. All you need to get across is this is about (a) advocacy, (b) Imminst is laden with scientists talking about ongoing, relevant science, © radical life extension. Not rocket science.
- someone make an executive decision, fix up the header and get on and make the switch already.
#74
Posted 03 July 2006 - 03:47 AM
everything below the title bar is something like 1000% better in terms of presenting the good stuff and using space far more effectively. Why isn't it up already?
Agreed. I think Bruce has asked for a 60-day vote. I think 60 days is fair when discussing the byline but in regards to graphical layout....well the new page should be up now
From a scientists perspective, the new page is great because it has visable area of research.
#75
Posted 03 July 2006 - 05:45 AM
Sure thing, give me a few days, I am busy with family stuff until after the 4th, then I can do it.That's beautiful Great job.
I'd do the new structure, with this at the top, before the "projects".
-Infernity
Agree... Nate, could you combine:
with:
orignial:
So the final version would be:
ImmInst.org
For Open-Ended Lifespans
#76
Posted 03 July 2006 - 06:00 AM
Good work, Harold. Thanks for taking the initiative.
#77
Posted 03 July 2006 - 02:12 PM
This is where the risk aversion of many folks in this organization is a part of the problem I suspect. I find it fascinating that apparantly all those who are more interested in making aggressive changes to the organizational structure, methods and messages are also those that are much less risk averse personally according to their profiles.
That's an unusual conclusion. Care to explain how you arrived at it?
#78
Posted 03 July 2006 - 09:00 PM
Increasing lifespan by dramatically reducing childhood and infant mortality doesn't count, as far as the public is concerned. People think of lifespan (due to aging, etc.) as the amount of time they have left to live. By the time people are really in a position to ponder that, they're no longer young children.
The fact that a 20% infant mortality rate effectively cuts the "lifespan" by 20% is a moot point to people, and materially irrelevant. If the typical 20-year-old--or even the typical 10-year-old--can expect to live to 75 on average, and it was to age 60 200 years ago, then that's only about a 25% improvement in "lifespan". Hardly the "doubling" that one gets from the shift we've seen in mean lifespan.
The reason is that the entire survival curve hasn't been stretched to the right by a factor of 2. It's been stretched up, for ages above about 5 or so, and perhaps shifted a bit to the right, though not more than a couple tens percent.
#79
Posted 03 July 2006 - 10:14 PM
This is where the risk aversion of many folks in this organization is a part of the problem I suspect. I find it fascinating that apparantly all those who are more interested in making aggressive changes to the organizational structure, methods and messages are also those that are much less risk averse personally according to their profiles.
That's an unusual conclusion. Care to explain how you arrived at it?
Or, perhaps try being direct and use specific cases to illustrate youir point?
#80
Posted 03 July 2006 - 10:22 PM
Laz, I think where we perhaps differ is that, as I see it, the term "lifespan" has a certain fairly common connotation in society, and it would be disingenuine of us to make such a "controversial" public statement when you're clearly not referring to the same thing the man on the street is.
Increasing lifespan by dramatically reducing childhood and infant mortality doesn't count, as far as the public is concerned. People think of lifespan (due to aging, etc.) as the amount of time they have left to live. By the time people are really in a position to ponder that, they're no longer young children.
The fact that a 20% infant mortality rate effectively cuts the "lifespan" by 20% is a moot point to people, and materially irrelevant. If the typical 20-year-old--or even the typical 10-year-old--can expect to live to 75 on average, and it was to age 60 200 years ago, then that's only about a 25% improvement in "lifespan". Hardly the "doubling" that one gets from the shift we've seen in mean lifespan.
The reason is that the entire survival curve hasn't been stretched to the right by a factor of 2. It's been stretched up, for ages above about 5 or so, and perhaps shifted a bit to the right, though not more than a couple tens percent.
The idea isn't to try to be controversial. Many messages are intrinsically controversial on their own merits; and when issues happen to fit this profile, it's often best not to try to make such ideas seem ordinary.
Living "forever" is a controversial message already. We don't need any more controversy surrounding that issue.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users