LONGECITY

Arent we too much centered around aubrey de grey?

Well this thread is about him. He is the most public figure in the lifespan extensionist movement (far and away the most public...) and thus he is leverage. Use what you have.

Is there a way that the mprize can request donations with a side note to donate to its supporting ideas, such as sens PR,...?

We are definitely working on PR and have some operating budget. Unfortunately although there is some interest from the 1.6 M we have in cash that we can turn torwards overhead, it can't cover all our expenses but we're making do which is a lot with the quality of volunteers we have (ie: Richard Scheulers incredibly heroic effort to get the videos and audio online....blows me away). We've gotten excellent exposure thus far in a lot of media and we think it will increase naturally as the issues of aging become even more mainstream...but more funding would certainly be helpful .. of course . We have had people donate specifically to cover overhead in the past but with the generous donation by Theil, and ongoing funding from our 300 Members for SENS research, the pressure for direct support has been relieved somewhat.

It's been a busy couple months..

Maybe when Aubrey gives an interview for a non-science program, he should forgo talking about mitochodria, cells, advanced glycation end products, lysosomes etc. Maybe he should strip it down to the very basics, like maintaining the house analogy. It seems like once you start to bring up more scientific terms, the common audience tends to glaze over and just ignore you. Or just talk more about the ethical arguments or replacing organs and stuff of that nature that people might easily get. It seems like in somes ways you have to dumb down the argument in order to make it more popular. Even if that means reducing some of the scientific validity of the argument. People tend to swallow memes that are neatly packaged as opposed ones that really analyze the nitty gritty. How is it that Rhonda Byrne’s "The secret" got so much air time even though it was a pretty ludicrous theory? The answer is that people like simplicity.

Isn't that the reason why they didn't use his interview on "good morning america" (or whatever the program was). His interview was just too science loaded for them.

Maybe when Aubrey gives an interview for a non-science program, he should forgo talking about mitochodria, cells, advanced glycation end products, lysosomes etc.  Maybe he should strip it down to the very basics, like maintaining the house analogy.

On the television interviews I have seen, that is exactly what he does:



http://video.google....242449757321186
...etc...

Some claimed he's still "too sciencey"

Some claimed he's still "too sciencey"

It is sad that more and more the only way something will be heard is if it is very entertaining. I see why this would be the case for an entertainment network choosing what to air but this is the case for many people when it comes to conversation/learning/anything-that-requires-more-than-a-nano-sec-of-attention. It seems to be getting worse too. It is not about how fast it spreads anymore but if it spreads at all. Falsehood will win out over truth if it is more entertaining.

I think he might have to dumb it down even more. The average person is pretty dumb (sorry but I had to go there). The people on this forum are not your average person, so you really can't go by what we think. Maybe we need like a focus group of people with people with average or even lower IQ to give Aubrey pointers on what the average person would be able to understand. There must be a reason why the program rejected him for being "too sciencey". Aubrey is a good speaker, but it just seems like he has to aim even lower in his speeches in order to get a wider audience.

I don't know if I want a bunch of dumb people in our movement.

Their money would be nice though...

I don't know if I want a bunch of dumb people in our movement.

Their money would be nice though...

Yeah we might need their money and support to get the whole life extension movement to go forward. Of course, reaching a wider audience could always backfire. But it seems like the average person wants to live a longer life as opposed to a shorter life (even if that doesn't necessarily mean they want immortality).
Edited by hrc579, 15 October 2007 - 10:58 PM.

I don't know if I want a bunch of dumb people in our movement.

Their money would be nice though...

Actually we need more than money, in fact money is the smallest part of it. Cooperation is the key and it needs to be cooperation amongs diverse and varied parties. Only with help of all can this succeed, genius or not. There are many roles to play when life is at the center of an endeavor.

I don't know if I want a bunch of dumb people in our movement.

Their money would be nice though...

Actually we need more than money, in fact money is the smallest part of it. Cooperation is the key and it needs to be cooperation amongs diverse and varied parties. Only with help of all can this succeed, genius or not. There are many roles to play when life is at the center of an endeavor.

I agree. Money is actually 90% of what we need. But we can only get money with cooperation. Billionaires that want to look nice to the public could support us also instead of supporting charities only.


I believe that once results start appearing (like achieving extreme LE in mice), the public will start supporting us more and funding will be abundant. The public probably doesn't like the idea much now because they might think we're "a bunch of lunatics with the crazy idea of trying to manipulate life". But once we start getting results, i bet that we will start getting support. Who wouldn't like to live longer, once they see that it's really possible? Only depressive suicidal folks wouldn't like the idea; fortunately they're only a fraction of the population.