90 replies to this topic

[Ben Simon]

And anyone who tells me otherwise, I call BS on immediately.

So stop with the hypocrisy.

I'll tell you otherwise. Feel free to call BS.

While I would love for long term life extension to come along in my life time, I just don't know that it will. My position is kind of the other way round to yours, as stated. In it for everybody, but fingers crossed that I (and my loved ones) benefit.

PS. I wonder if John has seen this thread yet.

Edited by ben, 13 December 2008 - 02:09 AM.

[VictorBjoerk]

how many people are working together with Aubrey at the methuselah foundation? they seem to be quite few?

[Prometheus]

You aren't life-extensionists, because you want Joe in Somalia to have his life extended; you're in it, because you want your own life extended.

Speak for yourself..

Any significant advance made in this area should be rapidly disseminated throughout humanity. It would be inconceivable to put a price on it that makes life extension unattainable for most.

PS We should also be reminded that capitalistic drives exist principally due to limited resources rather than merit. In a technologically advanced society where resources are sufficiently bountiful for all its members to access then the motives for achievement and progress would be fundamentally different.

[zoolander]

I'm not sure if John has see this thread yet but if he has I would like for him to see the lighter side of the situation. The darker side of course is that science is just (or a majority) about capital

[suspire]

You aren't life-extensionists, because you want Joe in Somalia to have his life extended; you're in it, because you want your own life extended.

Speak for yourself..

Any significant advance made in this area should be rapidly disseminated throughout humanity. It would be inconceivable to put a price on it that makes life extension unattainable for most.

Uh, welcome to the health care industry versus the reality of the world. I think you're talking about Utopia here. I also think most life extensionists know that if life extension is available, they'll have a much greater chance of attaining it in their life time than the 50%+ of the world's population that lives under the poverty line. Life extensionists are in it for themselves; in an ideal world, they wouldn't mind their fellow man having it too (well, the best of us wouldn't mind it; I suspect there is a sizeable minority who'd have a very different take on sharing it with the rest of the world when the reality of it was available), but most of us either know that won't happen or refuse to think about it, much like we refuse to think about the absurd, perverse difference in our own lives versus those facing crushing poverty in Africa, all by luck of the genetic lottery.

PS We should also be reminded that capitalistic drives exist principally due to limited resources rather than merit. In a technologically advanced society where resources are sufficiently bountiful for all its members to access then the motives for achievement and progress would be fundamentally different.

Once again, we're talking Utopia.

Edited by suspire, 13 December 2008 - 05:16 AM.

[Prometheus]

... we're talking Utopia.

Like eternal life and the singularity aren't?

[suspire]

... we're talking Utopia.

Like eternal life and the singularity aren't?

Well, I think they could be. Or they could be hell on Earth. Either way, as I've said before, I've got a minor nihilistic side to me: If things work out, woo-hoo! If not, I'm also okay with watching the world burn.

[Ben Simon]

Life extensionists are in it for themselves.

What's with the generalisations? Even Aubrey has stated that he's not sure how interested he is in living past one hundred. He just thinks people ought be able to choose. This isn't all about the vanity of individuals you know? Not all of us are as happy as you to 'watch the world burn'.

[suspire]

Life extensionists are in it for themselves.

What's with the generalisations? Even Aubrey has stated that he's not sure how interested he is in living past one hundred. He just thinks people ought be able to choose. This isn't all about the vanity of individuals you know? Not all of us are as happy as you to 'watch the world burn'.

What's with the defensiveness? If it doesn't apply to you, don't worry about it. Otherwise it might give the impression that the assessment was too close to home.

And as for my "watch the world burn" remark, it is my light-hearted response to my serious concern that the world, without massive preparation, will be unprepared for either immortality or Singularity and my observations that all these very dedicated life-extensionists, who are so very dearly concerned about the plight of the entire world, might start some major effort, on par with their efforts towards immortality and Singularity, in preparing for the transition.

Or they could just say they were really concerned and aren't in it just for themselves. That'd be almost the same thing.

[Ben Simon]

What's with the defensiveness? If it doesn't apply to you, don't worry about it. Otherwise it might give the impression that the assessment was too close to home.

And as for my "watch the world burn" remark, it is my light-hearted response to my serious concern that the world, without massive preparation, will be unprepared for either immortality or Singularity and my observations that all these very dedicated life-extensionists, who are so very dearly concerned about the plight of the entire world, might start some major effort, on par with their efforts towards immortality and Singularity, in preparing for the transition.

Or they could just say they were really concerned and aren't in it just for themselves. That'd be almost the same thing.

What's with the defensiveness? Well, see? You repeatedly voiced an insulting opinion of everyone on this board. I disagreed, and so I made a comment to that effect, as is common when I am engaged in discussion of an issue. Although, (yikes) you've now followed up by asserting that I am lending support to your original claim by doing so, which has totes sunk my battleship. ...Uh oh. Your glib cynicism has beaten my facts.

Hey by the way guess what? Did you know the moon is made out of cheese? ...Don't agree? That means you secretly do.

As for the fact that "the world, without massive preparation, will be unprepared for either immortality or Singularity"? ...No shit. We're working on it.

Edited by ben, 13 December 2008 - 03:07 PM.

[suspire]

You repeatedly voiced an insulting opinion of everyone on this board.

I don't think stating that people are primarily motivated by self-interest is insulting. I am the same, no better no worse. I just take exception to hypocrisy masked as altruism.

Your glib cynicism has beaten my facts.

Cool. Lemme know when you have some facts that support your position. I am waiting with baited breath.

...No shit. We're working on it.

Evidenced by...?

[eternaltraveler]

You repeatedly voiced an insulting opinion of everyone on this board.

I don't think stating that people are primarily motivated by self-interest is insulting. I am the same, no better no worse. I just take exception to hypocrisy masked as altruism.

Your glib cynicism has beaten my facts.

Cool. Lemme know when you have some facts that support your position. I am waiting with baited breath.

...No shit. We're working on it.

Evidenced by...?

Ben originated the idea I spent months developing for example. He's certainly a doer

[Mind]

PS We should also be reminded that capitalistic drives exist principally due to limited resources rather than merit. In a technologically advanced society where resources are sufficiently bountiful for all its members to access then the motives for achievement and progress would be fundamentally different.

I agree that we are currently in a transition time period between scarcity and abundance. Since the "Utopia" you speak of is still at least a couple decades away, I think we need to appeal to the "capitalists drives", otherwise we will be getting no where fast.

[eternaltraveler]

There will always be scarcity. The same things might not be scarce, but something sure will be.

[Mind]

Well, I'll just say there will be less scarcity or less perceived scarcity as more and more of human endeavors become information-based. Record companies used to rely on scarcity. Once the music went digital (information-based), the scarcity evaporated, music flowed to everyone like water, and the business model crashed (to be replaced by a less profitable but inherently more efficient and rewarding model for the consumer). The most important scarce resources in an information economy are creativity and innovation.

[Shepard]

As long as sex is still sex, there is going to be competition regardless of material scarcity.

[brokenportal]

I wish there were a pill that could turn off the sex drive. Man kind would already have the singularity and have colonized vast expanses of space and have life extension if it werent for the distraction of the sex drive, Im sure most of you would agree.

I hope this transition from "scarcity to abundance" happens fast because in that world, the world as a whole will have to spend far less time with physical endeavors and will be able to designate far more of their time to "creativity and innovation," while surrounded by ever increasingly more astoundingly efficient and dynamic tools for doing so.

Oh, and the point that has been occuring to me regarding this is that evolution will then be able to stop focusing in so much on the physical, and be able to focus in much more on evolving our mental capacity right?

Edited by brokenportal, 13 December 2008 - 10:01 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

Im sure most of you would agree.

I would not.

Half the things people achieve that push the human race forward are done to impress the opposite sex.

[John Schloendorn]

Right, did I mention that I do this only to get laid...?

[Shepard]

Good, I was afraid this 'scientist as rock star' dream I have in my head might not happen.

[brokenportal]

Im sure most of you would agree.

I would not.

Half the things people achieve that push the human race forward are done to impress the opposite sex.

True, some things are because of the sex drive. Im sure science isnt one of them though. A lot more could get done with out the sex drive.

As another example of things that dont get done with the sex drive as a motivator, my grandpa is continuing to maintain his farm and build wealth at like 85 years old, Im sure hes not doing it to impress the ladies.

Although John may be doing the science because he thinks its a good way to get laid, Im quite certain that he has been led astray.

[zoolander]

Right, did I mention that I do this only to get laid...?

Good luck with that one John. You may end up depleting the "millions" in the MF fund getting someone to cooperate. If I were you I would pull out before it's too late (pun intended).

Anyhow, I require a response re. my view that the video of you on the Methuselah website makes you look like a egotistical money hungry scientist?

Edited by zoolander, 13 December 2008 - 11:03 PM.

[kismet]

You repeatedly voiced an insulting opinion of everyone on this board.

I don't think stating that people are primarily motivated by self-interest is insulting. I am the same, no better no worse. I just take exception to hypocrisy masked as altruism.

I have to side with suspire in this case, personally I'm only driven by some kind of 'egoism'. I want knowledge and I want to explore the endless possiblities science could offer in the next hundreds of years, it's always I, I, I, if I wanted to be "altruistic" it would still be an egoistic act IMHO, because being an "altruist" would make me happy.  
We should not care, much less quarrel, about anyone's motives (be it sex, money, altruism or egoism), though, let's just get on with our plan, shall we?

[zoolander]

We should not care, much less quarrel, about anyone's motives (be it sex, money, altruism or egoism), though, let's just get on with our plan, shall we?

Of course we should care because it's a serious conflict of interest if the motive is money/capital when the mission of a non-profit medical charity is extending healthy human life. Money = self-interest. Medical charity dedicated to extending healthy human life= society interest.

No caring about motive to minimise tension is not a very productive stand to take.

Your life insurance company also apparently cares about your health however they care more about the bottom line. KaChing!

Edited by zoolander, 13 December 2008 - 11:40 PM.

[brokenportal]

We should not care, much less quarrel, about anyone's motives (be it sex, money, altruism or egoism), though, let's just get on with our plan, shall we?

Of course we should care because it's a serious conflict of interest if the motive is money/capital when the mission of a non-profit medical charity is extending healthy human life. Money = self-interest. Medical charity dedicated to extending healthy human life= society interest.

No caring about motive to minimise tension is not a very productive stand to take.

Your life insurance company also apparently cares about your health however they care more about the bottom line. KaChing!

Yes, but you dont sense that this is gratuitous tension and that it is potentially harmful?

[kismet]

We should not care, much less quarrel, about anyone's motives (be it sex, money, altruism or egoism), though, let's just get on with our plan, shall we?

Of course we should care because it's a serious conflict of interest if the motive is money/capital when the mission of a non-profit medical charity is extending healthy human life. Money = self-interest. Medical charity dedicated to extending healthy human life= society interest.

You're probably right in the case of a charity, I was more or less responding only to some board members quarreling about their motives. On the other hand isn't a member of a charity allowed to have a personal life and a personal opinion, independent of the charity's mission? If his statement appeared on the official mfoundation page, it should probably not contain his personal goals, though.  I don't know, you can go on with your discussion.

No caring about motive to minimise tension is not a very productive stand to take.

Your life insurance company also apparently cares about your health however they care more about the bottom line. KaChing!

If someone's motives might interfere with my interests, then I would have a reason to worry. In this case, though, it makes no difference to me if people positively contribute to imminst, because they're trying to be egoists or altruists or want to get rich in the long term or whatever.

Edited by kismet, 14 December 2008 - 12:43 AM.

[zoolander]

In this case, though, it makes no difference to me if people positively contribute to imminst, because they're trying to be egoists or altruists or want to get rich in the long term or whatever.

We have a lot of members like you diluting the meme.

From section 4 of the mission:

# Section 4 -- Nonprofit Educational & Charitable Organization

ImmInst is organized exclusively for charitable, educational, and scientific purposes as may qualify it as exempt from federal income tax under applicable sections of the Internal Revenue Code (1986), as amended, or corresponding section(s) of any future federal tax code. Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Constitutions or in the Bylaws, ImmInst shall not engage in any activities that would endanger its status as exempt from federal income tax under Section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or its status as a corporation, contributions to which are deductible under Section 170©(2) of the Internal Revenue Code.

[Prometheus]

As long as sex is still sex, there is going to be competition regardless of material scarcity.

Not if all people have the opportunity to be attractive, have access to desirable partners and are not afflicted with issues of self-esteem.

Indeed much progress in arts and sciences has been driven by various forms of unrequited love, or as elrond said, "to impress the opposite sex" (with some exceptions such as da Vinci). And as mind said, we must rely on capitalistic drives for a while longer.

So an interesting question is what would happen to innovation and creativity in a "Utopian" society? Would they just dry up?

On the contrary - creativity and innovation would flourish. I'll explain. Amongst us, there are some individuals who are driven to explore and to innovate solely for the pleasure of finding things out. Not for money, love or fear. I call this type of person a 'searcher'. Some of them become scientists or engineers but invariably they tinker, read and contemplate because they enjoy those activities, generally over other pleasures, in and of themselves.

In a society of asymmetrical resources those with the most powerful drives - capital acquisition, sex and control of others - invariably identify the searchers and recruit them for their own ambitions. Consequently a symbiosis of sorts takes place (although often, as many scientists and engineers will attest, rather than symbiotic such relationships can be parasitic) where the searchers innate skills are harnessed.

Therefore, a Utopian society would see searchers flourish uninhibited and unfettered by the recruitment of those with other drives.

Unfortunately, John S didn't come across as a searcher and that's particularly sad because he probably is one.

PS Give a searcher some personal space and eventually the problem is solved. Most grand discoveries are not made in the labs of pharma companies with million dollar budgets. In fact very few key discoveries were made under such circumstances.

[eternaltraveler]

We have a lot of members like you diluting the meme.

I don't think you understand the meme very well if thats what you think...

the organization is non profit. Does that mean every single person who posts on these forums are supposed to be some kind of communist who does everything they ever do purely out of altruistic reasons?

that's insane.

and besides, why do you care what someone's motivation is if they put in strong effort to the same goal? If you are counting on all the work to be done with zero personal motives we may as well forget aging being cured in time for it to matter to anyone alive today.

Edited by elrond, 14 December 2008 - 01:45 AM.

[Prometheus]

Does that mean every single person who posts on these forums are supposed to be some kind of communist who does everything they ever do purely out of altruistic reasons?

A more suitable and enlightened terminology in keeping with the lofty ambitions of imminst and mfoudation would be to use 'Utopian' rather than communist. Communism requires enforced sharing of limited resources, whilst Utopianism would be potentially limitless access to resources for all individuals.

In any case, I believe zoolander was referring to matters of conflict of interest, contravention of the articles of incorporation and tax law. Not forum postings.