too 'sciencey'
This is a significant dilemma we face.
1. Optimistic Immortalist: We can defeat aging and eventually live forever.
2. Skeptical Public: How? We can't even cure a cold nor defeat cancer.
3. Optimistic Immortalist: Not today but if we do x and y we can do this and much more in the next z decades.
4. Skeptical Public: huh? [huh]
Numbers 3 and 4 become a vicious cycle of education and proselytizing of both the science and necessity respectively. This is a difficult message to weave as the scaling the scientific disciplines can be a daunting task alone never mind attempting to weave in the philosophical and humanitarian arguments that curing aging should be seen as one of the pinnacles of human achievement.
The idea of living forever cuts across the grain of so many indoctrinated cultural memes that even having this conversation with intelligent and open minded people is like asking someone to try and swallow a giant scoop of a new and bizarrely flavored ice cream on hot day. You're shocking them with an ice-cream headache and a taste-bud overload at the same time.
While casting a wide net like GMA Aubrey may get some 'hits' but in general, immortalists might be best served by studying the demographics in detail and crafting messages for particular groups.