Anyone hear about the LifeStar Institute before?
Seems they are just getting going. Aubrey is an advisor - what is that, like 345 advisor positions he holds now?
Just keeping my eyes out for potential partnership in promoting research or advocacy.
Posted 26 April 2009 - 12:32 AM
Posted 26 April 2009 - 02:35 AM
Posted 26 April 2009 - 03:23 AM
Seems they are just getting going. Aubrey is an advisor - what is that, like 345 advisor positions he holds now?
Just keeping my eyes out for potential partnership in promoting research or advocacy.
Posted 26 April 2009 - 04:17 AM
It's ok as far as I'm concerned. More money is more money, and though some of the marquee names are the same, this also brings in new people. I recall Duke Nukem suggesting "StarLife" as a possible new name for our institute. Maybe the LifeStar guys were reading...Great.. Like we need another institute/society/fundation.Seems they are just getting going. Aubrey is an advisor - what is that, like 345 advisor positions he holds now?
Just keeping my eyes out for potential partnership in promoting research or advocacy.
Same faces, same results.
Posted 26 April 2009 - 06:08 AM
I don't see Aubrey on their Advisers page. (Beard too long? Degree insufficiently impressive?) It looks like a pretty straight organization, without the scary quackiness that might deter stodgy donors. They talk around the "curing aging" point on their site. They primarily come at it from a fiscal angle, i.e. we can't afford to keep on as we're going, longevity dividend, etc. They do address "the usual objections". Aside from the New-Agey pics from the Hubble, their public persona appears to be purposefully staid. They leave us free to pursue our course staking out a path somewhere between LifeStar and FuckDeath.org...Anyone hear about the LifeStar Institute before?
Seems they are just getting going. Aubrey is an advisor - what is that, like 345 advisor positions he holds now?
Just keeping my eyes out for potential partnership in promoting research or advocacy.
Posted 26 April 2009 - 11:00 AM
I don't see Aubrey on their Advisers page.
Posted 26 April 2009 - 06:48 PM
Posted 26 April 2009 - 07:49 PM
Posted 26 April 2009 - 10:38 PM
I don't see Aubrey on their Advisers page.
Maybe he is not on the AdvisErs page, but he is on the AdvisOrs page. Maybe someone should send them a message about the repetition/confusion.
Duke's "Starlife" name occurred to me as well, which made me wonder how they came up with the name.
Edited by kevin, 26 April 2009 - 10:56 PM.
Posted 27 April 2009 - 12:07 AM
Anyone hear about the LifeStar Institute before?
Seems they are just getting going. Aubrey is an advisor - what is that, like 345 advisor positions he holds now?
Just keeping my eyes out for potential partnership in promoting research or advocacy.
Posted 27 April 2009 - 02:16 AM
Edited by Anthony, 27 April 2009 - 02:17 AM.
Posted 27 April 2009 - 02:22 AM
Posted 27 April 2009 - 05:51 AM
"The world is faced with multiple crises but there is one which does not receive the consideration in keeping with its certainty and magnitude. That crisis is not due to global warming or global debt, but one much more personal and more immediate. This crisis is the "silver tsunami" of global aging whose height, velocity and other aspects have been predicted by experts the world over for decades. They are now measuring its ongoing economic destruction, building the charts and graphs describing the impact of the wave of elderly sweeping the globe. In the U.S. alone in 2003, the degenerative diseases associated with aging had an economic impact of 1.3 trillion dollars, and this will increase to 4.1 trillion by 2030. There will be precious little leftover for much else other than dealing with the immense pressure of an aging population.
Beyond the economics, this demographic shift will see 1 in 4 individuals in the world over the age of 60 by 2030. The young will have humanity's future on their side, but the old will have the vote on theirs. Political unrest and intergenerational conflict have the potential to fracture economies and disrupt global security, yet, despite the clear danger global aging represents, the people and governments of the world have no coherent response. Even futurists largely relegate the importance of global aging to a lower priority, when actually, unless we can do something to alter the trajectory of the "global aging asteroid" the numbers themselves suggest a certainty of a dramatically different future than the scenarios the transhumanist community would like to see come to pass."--Kevin
Kevin,
A couple of quick questions/comments:
1) A project of this magnitude requires significant funding. Do you think LifeStar will be able to generate the money necessary to achieve (or at least to stand a chance of achieving) its goals?
2) Optimally, you hope that this effort, in coordination with other, pro-longevist advocacy and biogerontological research efforts, will help spur the discovery and rapid dissemination of rejuvenation interventions within a 15-20 year time frame? I want to make sure I have the proposed timeframe correct. I assume that it is correct given Millard's current age and the time remaining before the "silver tsunami" hits.
3) For what it's worth, my initial reaction upon reviewing the website is positive. It appears that this group might have the will and the funding necessary to get the job done.
4) With that in mind, would you mind if I included a link to your post on my Facebook page?
Thank you for taking the time to give us more info. on the LifeStar initiative.
Anthony
Posted 27 April 2009 - 09:37 AM
Edited by AgeVivo, 27 April 2009 - 09:56 AM.
Posted 27 April 2009 - 05:09 PM
A few negative comments plus suggestions (btw, i might be wrong) so that you can prepare wrt what people might perceive:
L*'s leitmotivs:
- The current leitmotivs of L* are i) "look at this terrible coming economical crisis due to global aging" and ii) "we can solve it by coordinate anti-aging research". IMHO one need to dig a little to grasp them so you could think of one or two sentences to say it and put it at the beginning of your documents.
Laymen haven't heard of them so people might feel they are being tricked: L* is a bunch of anti-aging researchers that use the current fear of crisis to take our money.
i) Economists might fear you are right concerning the crisis and will try to read your financial arguments... that are currently extremely weak in your presentations (see your poster). I'm in this field and interested in aging so i personnally think it is plausible, but you need better economical presentations - if possible a respected economist among your advisors - for better presentations/arguments/respect. If some economical arguments (treating aging reduces costs) are obvious you should make them obvious to understand
ii) Non- anti-aging researchers may think that too much focus (research project organization) prevents findings. I'm also in this field and i believe that freedom of research shall not be neglected
L*'s extraordinary solution:
- The web site talks about a great solution (to an issue that somehow looks fake, as discussed) and it takes time to see whether you indeed have a solution.
When one understands that it is an "Apollo project", the unanswered question is: "what is the content of the project?" Here you will have to agree together!
One content for instance could be to derive a specie of very long-lived mice, as suggested by M. Rose, to compare it with the initial specie, test which differences do extend lifespan, and make it to humans. Another one would be to get more SENS researchers Another one would be to make a jointure with the Global Integrative Multilevel Multisystem Aging Cure Plan and to implement it/smthg
Btw if L* is restricted to the US it should say so, otherwise there should be more non-US advisors
This said, personnally i think you are on a right track. Good luck, if we may help don't hesitate to ask.
(PS: "LifeStarProject" appears in your documents. If it is a former name, change that)
Posted 27 April 2009 - 07:35 PM
And you seem to be good at that Good luckIt is the creation of the first "roadmap" of the project which will take the input of many and as we all know, achieving consensus is not always easy. Still, that is where the unique skills of project managers can be brought to bear.
Posted 12 September 2009 - 11:23 AM
Edited by Mixter, 12 September 2009 - 11:24 AM.
Posted 12 September 2009 - 07:50 PM
Posted 12 September 2009 - 08:04 PM
Thanks mixter,
it sure was an experience at SENS4 to be approached by some quite "macho" guys and being told that the video brought a tear to their eye and they wanted a copy to use in their presentations and to show their friends.
I think the film does evoke a certain emotional response in that the facts are pretty stark but at the same time, there is such hope and room for optimism in a message that brings people together. I hope we can see a similar effect on everyone who is open to it.
Thanks for your own efforts.. it will take all of us doing everything we can to create the "phase change" in public opinion about the potential of new technologies to address and acute and perennial problem.
Posted 12 September 2009 - 11:09 PM
Posted 13 September 2009 - 12:43 AM
By the way Kevin, how has the LifeStar initiative been progressing during the past few months (since the last time we had a discussion on this forum about it)? Anything new to report?
Posted 13 September 2009 - 05:25 AM
Posted 13 September 2009 - 09:56 AM
Posted 13 September 2009 - 06:13 PM
Kevin, it sounds like you guys had a truly great meeting. I hope that you make rapid progress with the meeting draft and that we can soon be reading it. I'll be interested in seeing the relative amount of effort that went into the questions of 1) Can We?, 2) Should We?, and 3) How Shall We? I'd like to think that we are largely past #1, but suspect that #2 will require the most effort as far as the lay public is concerned.
Thanks for your efforts on this.
Posted 13 September 2009 - 09:11 PM
I agree that it's an approachable challenge with huge potential payoff, but it worries me that they aren't even talking about #2. Whenever these ideas are presented to the unwashed masses, the opposition is significant. I base this on comments to news articles, blog postings, and the like, along with the views of some of the more well-known bio-luddites. If the only result of anti-aging research is that people will routinely live to 100 in good health then die quickly and cheaply, society will be able to adapt easily. If the ultimate outcome is that we live for a millenium or more, then society will need to undergo some large changes. This strikes me as a major bone of contention among many, and something that could raise significant barriers. Have we all convinced ourselves to such an extent of the overwhelming good of ending aging that we are no longer considering the opposition we might face on it?Kevin, it sounds like you guys had a truly great meeting. I hope that you make rapid progress with the meeting draft and that we can soon be reading it. I'll be interested in seeing the relative amount of effort that went into the questions of 1) Can We?, 2) Should We?, and 3) How Shall We? I'd like to think that we are largely past #1, but suspect that #2 will require the most effort as far as the lay public is concerned.
Thanks for your efforts on this.
It's hard to say whether (2) will be the hardest to convince people as those at the meeting never even mentioned it as a problem and were in agreement that with the proper level of support in keeping with the potential of the science and size of the problem, aging is an approachable challenge. I think that the public will hear that and accept it and say.. "okay.. so it will be hard.. what can we do.. ?"... at least that is the theory...
Posted 13 September 2009 - 10:44 PM
I agree that it's an approachable challenge with huge potential payoff, but it worries me that they aren't even talking about [why we should intervene in aging]. Whenever these ideas are presented to the unwashed masses, the opposition is significant. [...] If the only result of anti-aging research is that people will routinely live to 100 in good health then die quickly and cheaply, society will be able to adapt easily. If the ultimate outcome is that we live for a millenium or more, then society will need to undergo some large changes. This strikes me as a major bone of contention [...]
Edited by Michael, 30 September 2009 - 11:57 AM.
Trim quotes
Posted 16 September 2009 - 03:23 AM
Posted 16 September 2009 - 06:00 AM
Posted 16 September 2009 - 06:10 AM
Whenever these ideas [on intervening in aging[ are presented to the unwashed masses, the opposition is significant. ... If the only result of anti-aging research is that people will routinely live to 100 in good health then die quickly and cheaply, society will be able to adapt easily. If the ultimate outcome is that we live for a millenium or more, then society will need to undergo some large changes.
Edited by Michael, 30 September 2009 - 12:00 PM.
Trim quotes
Posted 16 September 2009 - 04:16 PM
Hello Kevin.
Would like to make a suggestion for you which I made once for BP as well, but had no idea how to begin making it work.
If it's funding for rejuvenation you are looking for, might I suggest Hollywood as a possible source? If you can convince actors that there is a real, legitimate possibility for rejuvenation, that there is a possibility that they may be restored to youth, health and beauty, I believe you may find billions of dollars might become available, not only from the actors themselves, but from much of the movie industry, in which Vanity is, above all, King.
Imagine Harrison Ford being able to look like he did in Raiders, or Arnie always being able to look like he did in Terminator. Imagine how many various female stars would pay anything to remain 25 forever, or to return to how they looked when they first got their big break.
When it comes to rejuvenation, be it Biological, Nanotechnological, or plain old waving a magic wand, Hollywood has the Demand in need of a Supply.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users