• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

What career? Field?


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#1 Alizee

  • Guest
  • 59 posts
  • 8
  • Location:MI

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:45 AM


I'm going to end up being a "professional student" since I been in college for 1.5 years now, and I'll tell you what... I drop out the past 2 semesters. The past 4 months were really just wasted on thinking. I have my tuition paid off by the state, so financially it's not really an issue at all. It's just I feel kind of like a loser, since I know if I waste any more time it's going to become pathetic. I could be earning decent money by this point of my life. I'm going to be 21, started at 19, and it's like I'm still a freshman in college! But I have 8 k in savings, which is better than nothing. I feel like I wasted the past 3 semesters of my life. My GPA is still 4.0, but it's full of W's, like I think more than 8 by now.

I'm still young, I have no children yet nor do I aspire for that, but I know I cannot do this forever.

I want a career that will help for the longevity cause, since I think that's the only thing I care about... more than money in fact. But I also want stability.

-----
what degree/career would you recommend?

thanks

Edited by Alizee, 30 November 2012 - 04:46 AM.


#2 caliban

  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 8,953 posts
  • 1,807
  • Location:UK

Posted 02 December 2012 - 05:01 AM

what degree/career would you recommend?


a bit about your interests, experience, strengths and weaknesses would really help here!


If you can, don't drop out of college without taking something from it for your future career.
This could be contacts, or a narrative that will sound good to future employers/investors.

E.g. "In college, I found that I send more time on fleshing out my business ideas than going to lecturers"
or
"in college, I found that the only thing I was truly good at was X, so even though everyone said I was crazy I eventually gave myself a push and dropped out to pursue X full time..."

#3 churchill

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 88
  • Location:London

Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:32 PM

If it is a career that helps the longevity cause, then I would suggest go into sales and marketing, at the end of the day the major hurdle is to convince enough people that living a long healthy life is a worthy goal, then the research money will flow into the right direction.
  • like x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,342 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:15 PM

Well, I started school at age 6 and emerged from university at the age of 33....and I still need to submit my PhD thesis! A little knowledge is a dangerous thing ;)

#5 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,442 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:34 PM

If you are bored with college, no sense in wasting the taxpayer's money. You have to find out what you are passionate about and what skills you possess. You do not need a college career to be successful but as Caliban pointed out, you don't want to look lazy, by dropping out of college with no other plan or desire in life. If you are passionate about life extension, then start volunteering to do some work at Longecity, one of the Cryonics organizations, SENS, Methuselah, etc... These orgs are always looking for volunteers and there is a ton of outreach work you can do from your home computer. If you volunteer for a few months, you might all of a sudden find a paid position. At the least, you will make new connections and gain social media/networking skills.

As far a staying in college goes, if you are good at math/logic, go into computer programming. It is the field that will probably provide the biggest pay-off for life extension, IMO.
  • like x 1

#6 Droplet

  • Life Member, Advisor Honorary Advisor
  • 6,405 posts
  • 1,406
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:25 PM

If it is a career that helps the longevity cause, then I would suggest go into sales and marketing, at the end of the day the major hurdle is to convince enough people that living a long healthy life is a worthy goal, then the research money will flow into the right direction.

I agree totally with this. :)

If you are passionate about life extension, then start volunteering to do some work at Longecity, one of the Cryonics organizations, SENS, Methuselah, etc... These orgs are always looking for volunteers and there is a ton of outreach work you can do from your home computer. If you volunteer for a few months, you might all of a sudden find a paid position. At the least, you will make new connections and gain social media/networking skills.

Yes, please please consider volunteering! I am just someone who gives what they can when they can but if you are extremely dedicated with a good chunk of time to spare then you can help move the cause onwards and upwards and contribute a lot more than I ever will. :) Alizee, if this cause is indeed all you care about then please get on board as soon as possible. I would really welcome another person to work alongside me and also to do a lot more than what I can currently offer.

Here's just some of the little things that can help lots: http://www.longecity...12/#entry549978

Edited by Droplet, 04 December 2012 - 07:26 PM.


#7 kmoody

  • Guest, F@H
  • 202 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Syracuse, NY

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:41 PM

If it is a career that helps the longevity cause, then I would suggest go into sales and marketing, at the end of the day the major hurdle is to convince enough people that living a long healthy life is a worthy goal, then the research money will flow into the right direction.

I respectfully disagree. Go into research. There are way too many people talking about living forever and not nearly enough people with the discipline and resolve to make it happen. People who are already locked into different career paths may have to find other ways to contribute, but if you have every door open then research is where you can make the biggest difference.

It is my opinion that the "there isn't enough money for life extension research" meme is among the most incorrect and damaging ones we propogate. If your ideas are worth pursuing, there are ways to finance them. Period. The challenge is advancing to the point where your ideas are worthy of financial support.

#8 churchill

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 88
  • Location:London

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:51 PM

If it is a career that helps the longevity cause, then I would suggest go into sales and marketing, at the end of the day the major hurdle is to convince enough people that living a long healthy life is a worthy goal, then the research money will flow into the right direction.

I respectfully disagree. Go into research. There are way too many people talking about living forever and not nearly enough people with the discipline and resolve to make it happen. People who are already locked into different career paths may have to find other ways to contribute, but if you have every door open then research is where you can make the biggest difference.

It is my opinion that the "there isn't enough money for life extension research" meme is among the most incorrect and damaging ones we propogate. If your ideas are worth pursuing, there are ways to finance them. Period. The challenge is advancing to the point where your ideas are worthy of financial support.


I am going to respectfully disagree with you. Do research and you have maximum one person working on the problem, go into sales marketing pr and you can convince millions to get behind the cause.

There certainly are not way too many people about living forever. Have you actually quizzed people outside of your social bubble? I think you will find most are very much still in the deathist camp.

Where is your evidence for there is enough money in life extension currently?

It does not matter how great your ideas are if the general public are against it and you can't get funding then you are dead in the water.
  • like x 2

#9 kmoody

  • Guest, F@H
  • 202 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Syracuse, NY

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:12 PM

I am going to respectfully disagree with you. Do research and you have maximum one person working on the problem, go into sales marketing pr and you can convince millions to get behind the cause.

Millions of people throwing money at a fad is ineffective. Enter exhibit "A", Nixon's war on cancer. I feel it more valuable to convince the scientists and medical professionals who understand this stuff and can expedite research and development once an initial breakthrough is made. These folks require data to be impressed, not just words.

There certainly are not way too many people about living forever. Have you actually quizzed people outside of your social bubble? I think you will find most are very much still in the deathist camp.

Yes, I spent three years doing academic research on this topic. Not to say work shouldn't be done to convince the mainstream, just that I think a more efficient allocation of resources is spending time doing the research.

Where is your evidence for there is enough money in life extension currently?

Well thought out and articulated ideas in life extension are being funded. How many legitimate anti-aging researchers can you name who have not received substantial financial support in the past 2-3 years?

It does not matter how great your ideas are if the general public are against it and you can't get funding then you are dead in the water.

The public does not directly fund research. This process is mediated by agencies that conduct peer-review using those science folks who require data to be impressed.

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#10 churchill

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 88
  • Location:London

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:23 PM

I am going to respectfully disagree with you. Do research and you have maximum one person working on the problem, go into sales marketing pr and you can convince millions to get behind the cause.

Millions of people throwing money at a fad is ineffective. Enter exhibit "A", Nixon's war on cancer. I feel it more valuable to convince the scientists and medical professionals who understand this stuff and can expedite research and development once an initial breakthrough is made. These folks require data to be impressed, not just words.

There certainly are not way too many people about living forever. Have you actually quizzed people outside of your social bubble? I think you will find most are very much still in the deathist camp.

Yes, I spent three years doing academic research on this topic. Not to say work shouldn't be done to convince the mainstream, just that I think a more efficient allocation of resources is spending time doing the research.

Where is your evidence for there is enough money in life extension currently?

Well thought out and articulated ideas in life extension are being funded. How many legitimate anti-aging researchers can you name who have not received substantial financial support in the past 2-3 years?

It does not matter how great your ideas are if the general public are against it and you can't get funding then you are dead in the water.

The public does not directly fund research. This process is mediated by agencies that conduct peer-review using those science folks who require data to be impressed.


Well number one just because cancer is not cured, does not mean that the money was wasted, progress has been made, maybe not as much as everyone would have liked but then cancer is a very hard problem to crack.

Just to be clear you have done academic research on studying what people believe about life extension and the opinions of the general public? If you are just talking about doing research on aging, then you are in a bubble. Mainstream does not agree with your view point, it can't have passed your attention that this site for example has an absolutely tiny following and many of them are here because of nootropics, that would not be the case if what you were saying were true. Where is your evidence that having one person do research is more efficient than having thousands of people doing research which is what I was advocating ultimately?? Or are you saying that even if I were able to convince everyone and their dog that aging can be cured, that they would just sit on their hands and not badger their politicians until they made sure the money flowed in the right direction?

Aubrey de Grey's research goals are hardly being funded at all.

While there is not a direct link between the public and research grants being granted, nevertheless if the public believes that money should go in a particular direction, then it will go in that direction.

#11 kmoody

  • Guest, F@H
  • 202 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Syracuse, NY

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:33 PM

I think we've both made a strong case for our respective positions and we can leave it for Alizee to sort out. A few quick comments...

Agreed, cancer is a very hard problem to crack and the money wasn't wasted per se. I just think that the Nixon war on cancer illustrates that throwing money and enthusiasm at a problem does not necessarily resolve it. It is important to dissect problems strategically and that requires people with a unique perspective. I have found immortalist scientists generally have this perspective.

Yes, I have done academic research on studying what people believe about life extension and the opinions of the general public. After a few years of that it became clear to me that rolling up my sleeves and jumping into biological research was the best way to contribute. I maintain that belief, else I would be doing something else.

Aubrey's larger problem is the turnover of SENS researchers, rather than funding. However, most of the turnover is a result of his top people leaving to start companies, which he strongly supports. Funding for Aubrey directly does not mean the same thing as funding for Aubrey's research goals.

#12 churchill

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 88
  • Location:London

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:56 PM

I think we've both made a strong case for our respective positions and we can leave it for Alizee to sort out. A few quick comments...

Agreed, cancer is a very hard problem to crack and the money wasn't wasted per se. I just think that the Nixon war on cancer illustrates that throwing money and enthusiasm at a problem does not necessarily resolve it. It is important to dissect problems strategically and that requires people with a unique perspective. I have found immortalist scientists generally have this perspective.

Yes, I have done academic research on studying what people believe about life extension and the opinions of the general public. After a few years of that it became clear to me that rolling up my sleeves and jumping into biological research was the best way to contribute. I maintain that belief, else I would be doing something else.

Aubrey's larger problem is the turnover of SENS researchers, rather than funding. However, most of the turnover is a result of his top people leaving to start companies, which he strongly supports. Funding for Aubrey directly does not mean the same thing as funding for Aubrey's research goals.


I disagree, I think that the Nixons war on cancer shows that throwing money at a problem does help and does push things forward. Just because the problem is a very hard one does not invalidate this tactic.

Why did you decide that jumping into biological research was the best way to contribute? Is that because you found it hard to sell people on life extension, or for another reason? Have you written any papers on the subject? I am interested as my strategy is the opposite to yours, it is to try and change as many peoples minds as possible, get them to donate and get them to be invested enough that they then go out and change other peoples minds. I would say that I feel I do have some success in changing peoples minds about the subject, or at least knock down their most obvious objections.

Well I can only call it from what I see. I saw a talk from Dr. De Grey over 5 years ago, then again a few months ago, and honestly funding wise the situation was not huge improvement from one timespan to the other. Billions need to go into to realise those research goals, instead he is having to be very selective on what he invests in because of the limited budget. I seem to recall him saying something like 100 billion for a 50/50 chance of curing aging? Something of that order anyway, and currently the actual money available is more in the millions. So using that metric, then no where near.

#13 kmoody

  • Guest, F@H
  • 202 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Syracuse, NY

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:21 AM

I disagree, I think that the Nixons war on cancer shows that throwing money at a problem does help and does push things forward. Just because the problem is a very hard one does not invalidate this tactic.

If you are satisfied with the state of the art for cancer therapy then I guess I cannot disagree with you.

Why did you decide that jumping into biological research was the best way to contribute?

People have tried to cure aging forever and failed. There have always been people who have wanted to live forever, but to date no one has succeeded. After reading Aubrey's book it became clear to me that I simply did not understand the science well enough to tell if SENS was crackpot or legitimate, so I decided to educate myself before forming an opinion. I reasoned that convincing people would not really matter if the science was not there, but maybe even if the science was not there I could help bring it along if I chose the research path. Trust me, I hate research. Their is nothing particularly fun about spending 99% of your time studying really complicated stuff and failing over and over again for that 1% success. However, I think it is the best way to contribute. If there were two Aubreys, each preaching something the opposite, how would you be able to tell if one was right or the other was? I think there are plenty of people peddling snake oil and I think that is most of the problem associated with traditional marketing for this cause.

Is that because you found it hard to sell people on life extension, or for another reason? Have you written any papers on the subject? I am interested as my strategy is the opposite to yours, it is to try and change as many peoples minds as possible, get them to donate and get them to be invested enough that they then go out and change other peoples minds. I would say that I feel I do have some success in changing peoples minds about the subject, or at least knock down their most obvious objections.

I have papers available. The project is being picked up by some TMT researchers. PM me and I can give you details if you're interested. This topic seems sufficiently removed from this thread that we should discuss it elsewhere.

Well I can only call it from what I see. I saw a talk from Dr. De Grey over 5 years ago, then again a few months ago, and honestly funding wise the situation was not huge improvement from one timespan to the other. Billions need to go into to realise those research goals, instead he is having to be very selective on what he invests in because of the limited budget. I seem to recall him saying something like 100 billion for a 50/50 chance of curing aging? Something of that order anyway, and currently the actual money available is more in the millions. So using that metric, then no where near.

I think that $100B might be a little bit of a loose number rather than a concrete representation of what is actually needed.

#14 churchill

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 88
  • Location:London

Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:40 AM

I disagree, I think that the Nixons war on cancer shows that throwing money at a problem does help and does push things forward. Just because the problem is a very hard one does not invalidate this tactic.

If you are satisfied with the state of the art for cancer therapy then I guess I cannot disagree with you.

You seem to be employing the Nirvana fallacy here? Just because the War on cancer did not cure cancer it was therefore a waste of time. I would argue that is not the case as some progress was made.

Why did you decide that jumping into biological research was the best way to contribute?

People have tried to cure aging forever and failed. There have always been people who have wanted to live forever, but to date no one has succeeded. After reading Aubrey's book it became clear to me that I simply did not understand the science well enough to tell if SENS was crackpot or legitimate, so I decided to educate myself before forming an opinion. I reasoned that convincing people would not really matter if the science was not there, but maybe even if the science was not there I could help bring it along if I chose the research path. Trust me, I hate research. Their is nothing particularly fun about spending 99% of your time studying really complicated stuff and failing over and over again for that 1% success. However, I think it is the best way to contribute. If there were two Aubreys, each preaching something the opposite, how would you be able to tell if one was right or the other was? I think there are plenty of people peddling snake oil and I think that is most of the problem associated with traditional marketing for this cause.

People tried to figure out how to fly for the longest time and they failed, so therefore the Wright brothers should just not have bothered??
Well the point is you wont be able to find out whether SENS does make sense, because the money wont be there, as is still very much the case. If there were two life extension researchers, and you have the money then you get them both to do research, that way it does not matter which one is right. In the current situation we have one researcher who can't get the funding let alone two. That is why it is so important to get the money in. Sure if you get 100 researchers on something, 99 of them will go up blind alleys, but that 1 will give you the answer, and it pays for all the misfires.

Is that because you found it hard to sell people on life extension, or for another reason? Have you written any papers on the subject? I am interested as my strategy is the opposite to yours, it is to try and change as many peoples minds as possible, get them to donate and get them to be invested enough that they then go out and change other peoples minds. I would say that I feel I do have some success in changing peoples minds about the subject, or at least knock down their most obvious objections.

I have papers available. The project is being picked up by some TMT researchers. PM me and I can give you details if you're interested. This topic seems sufficiently removed from this thread that we should discuss it elsewhere.

Will do.

Well I can only call it from what I see. I saw a talk from Dr. De Grey over 5 years ago, then again a few months ago, and honestly funding wise the situation was not huge improvement from one timespan to the other. Billions need to go into to realise those research goals, instead he is having to be very selective on what he invests in because of the limited budget. I seem to recall him saying something like 100 billion for a 50/50 chance of curing aging? Something of that order anyway, and currently the actual money available is more in the millions. So using that metric, then no where near.

I think that $100B might be a little bit of a loose number rather than a concrete representation of what is actually needed.


I am sure that figure is just a very loose number, no one knows the actual number, but it gives you a decent indication of the magnitude, at the moment it seems to be that not enough money is being spent in the right kind of research, and I am quite pessimistic that life extension happens within our lifetime, while that continues to be the case.

#15 Droplet

  • Life Member, Advisor Honorary Advisor
  • 6,405 posts
  • 1,406
  • Location:UK

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:53 AM

Alizee, maybe this would interest you? http://transhumanity...ate-in-radical-

May do or may not but it's a start. :)
  • dislike x 1

#16 kmoody

  • Guest, F@H
  • 202 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Syracuse, NY

Posted 05 December 2012 - 02:17 PM

People tried to figure out how to fly for the longest time and they failed, so therefore the Wright brothers should just not have bothered??

The Wright brothers did not discover how to fly by talking about it. They discovered how to fly by actually doing the work.

Well the point is you wont be able to find out whether SENS does make sense, because the money wont be there, as is still very much the case.

This is inaccurate. You do not have to actually do all the experiments to have some idea if the approach is reasonable.

If there were two life extension researchers, and you have the money then you get them both to do research, that way it does not matter which one is right. In the current situation we have one researcher who can't get the funding let alone two. That is why it is so important to get the money in. Sure if you get 100 researchers on something, 99 of them will go up blind alleys, but that 1 will give you the answer, and it pays for all the misfires.

Reiterating my previous point, name me one legitimate life extension researcher who has not received substantial capital in the past 2-3 years to demonstrate that their ideas are worthy of further pursuit.

This is becoming a circular discussion. Legitimate researchers get funding, and we need more of those with an emphasis on life extension. Illegitimate researchers struggle and have to sell snake oil. The public is properly skeptical of mystical claims of immortalism. We need more people doing the science and coming up with good ideas. If you think raising money through marketing is best, please continue doing that. However, good science which addresses any chronic age-related disease will raise MUCH more money in a MUCH shorter time than selling snake oil door to door.

#17 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,342 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 05 December 2012 - 02:30 PM

If it is a career that helps the longevity cause, then I would suggest go into sales and marketing, at the end of the day the major hurdle is to convince enough people that living a long healthy life is a worthy goal, then the research money will flow into the right direction.

I respectfully disagree. Go into research. There are way too many people talking about living forever and not nearly enough people with the discipline and resolve to make it happen.

Agreed. Besides, sales and marketing are not rocket science and can be studied at any point, while going into STEM-fields later may be too difficult.

#18 churchill

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 88
  • Location:London

Posted 05 December 2012 - 02:34 PM

People tried to figure out how to fly for the longest time and they failed, so therefore the Wright brothers should just not have bothered??

The Wright brothers did not discover how to fly by talking about it. They discovered how to fly by actually doing the work.

I am talking about doing the work, the funding needs to be in place in a large degree and the researchers will come.

Well the point is you wont be able to find out whether SENS does make sense, because the money wont be there, as is still very much the case.

This is inaccurate. You do not have to actually do all the experiments to have some idea if the approach is reasonable.

I am talking about it having a high likelyhood of success, at this point there is no one on this planet who know the answer to that question.

If there were two life extension researchers, and you have the money then you get them both to do research, that way it does not matter which one is right. In the current situation we have one researcher who can't get the funding let alone two. That is why it is so important to get the money in. Sure if you get 100 researchers on something, 99 of them will go up blind alleys, but that 1 will give you the answer, and it pays for all the misfires.

Reiterating my previous point, name me one legitimate life extension researcher who has not received substantial capital in the past 2-3 years to demonstrate that their ideas are worthy of further pursuit.

I said already Dr. De Gray. He is not getting the funding he wants. Or are you saying he is not legitimate?

This is becoming a circular discussion. Legitimate researchers get funding, and we need more of those with an emphasis on life extension. Illegitimate researchers struggle and have to sell snake oil. The public is properly skeptical of mystical claims of immortalism. We need more people doing the science and coming up with good ideas. If you think raising money through marketing is best, please continue doing that. However, good science which addresses any chronic age-related disease will raise MUCH more money in a MUCH shorter time than selling snake oil door to door.


Well this is your theory, what evidence is it actually based upon? Also given the multifaceted nature of aging, and it requiring multiple concurrent therapies, how exactly are you going to manage what you say on a tiny budget?

#19 churchill

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 88
  • Location:London

Posted 05 December 2012 - 02:47 PM

How about this then.

Choose either science or sales depending upon which you prefer and are best suited too. Working on either should push us forward.

#20 kmoody

  • Guest, F@H
  • 202 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Syracuse, NY

Posted 05 December 2012 - 02:55 PM

I am talking about doing the work, the funding needs to be in place in a large degree and the researchers will come.

Researchers who have not spent their lives thinking about these problems will come and spend your funding, sure. If you can get sufficient funding in the first place. How will you determine who to spend your money on?

I said already Dr. De Gray. He is not getting the funding he wants. Or are you saying he is not legitimate?

Aubrey has received millions of dollars to demonstrate proof-of-concept. One breakthrough and he will have all the money he could possibly want. He should be more than able to deliver something with the funding he has. The current lysoSENS project is worth several billion per year by itself if it works.

Well this is your theory, what evidence is it actually based upon?

The entire field of regenerative medicine was largely born on a single scientific advance, the derivation of human embryonic stem cells. Californians alone are dumping $6B on this area of research via CIRM, nevermind federal agencies and industry.

Also given the multifaceted nature of aging, and it requiring multiple concurrent therapies, how exactly are you going to manage what you say on a tiny budget?

It is kind of like social media. Many founders starts off with a good idea and a platform, and assumes everyone will come running to populate it. In reality, the companies that are successful can grow a business from a start-up to an industry with incremental, but solid advances. If you want to lose money quickly in investing, dump a ton of it on a single undemonstrated project. If you want to make money, diversify your portfolio, identify emerging talent, and give small seeds to let new talent prove itself.

Take SENS for example. Start with lysoSENS and the known enzymes that degrade A2E. Demonstrate uptake into RPE cells and A2E degradation and spin out a company. That company will not only grow to provide for the unmet medical need for macular degeneration therapies, but also validate the entire concept of medical bioremediation and lysoSENS. That will ultimately net SENS Foundation a substantial return on any intellectual property then own, but also bolster donations because a major component of their technology has been vetted.

#21 churchill

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 88
  • Location:London

Posted 05 December 2012 - 03:31 PM

@kmoody

Once again...Dr. De Gray. He is not getting the funding he WANTS. Yes he gets a small amount of funding, but he would wish it to be much much more.

We will all be dead by the time your strategy kicks in.

Lets take the lysoSENS approach, say the first 10 enzymes they choose fail. Say it takes a trying 1000 different enzymes before we hit upon the right one. Surely it makes most sense to do that in parallel, history is littered with failures before the success appears, I don't understand why you would advocate an approach which gives us less throws at the dice.

#22 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,442 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:06 PM

Calling Alizee!

Maybe you should be a professional debate-starter.

Seriously, I love this discussion. It is something that needs to play out. After talking with Aubrey recently and hearing that SENS needs money more than anything else, I would have to side somewhat with Churchill. Like any choice, it is not completely black and white. We need researchers AND money. However, at this particular point, it seems we have enough researchers to handle SENS research. With more money we could certainly buy/lure researchers away from other stuff that is unrelated to life extension, or away from research that is less efficient than SENS, or away from research that is not clearly dedicated toward practical human treatments.

If Alizee had a great talent for sales (all the great salespeople convince you to buy something you didn't know you wanted - and unlimited lifespans fits in this category for most of the human population) and could drum up millions of dollars for SENS, then that would be awesome.
  • like x 1

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#23 kmoody

  • Guest, F@H
  • 202 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Syracuse, NY

Posted 10 December 2012 - 03:16 PM

We need researchers AND money. However, at this particular point, it seems we have enough researchers to handle SENS research.

Ditto on the first point. Do keep in mind though that SENS Foundation has been trying to fill team lead positions for lysoSENS and oncoSENS since July. Talent is harder to find than you might think. Most academically trained researchers are curiosity driven, and do research because it interests them rather than to achieve any particular objective. That mindset is not necessarily compatible with longevity aims. Food for thought.
  • like x 1

#24 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,442 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 10 December 2012 - 03:37 PM

We need researchers AND money. However, at this particular point, it seems we have enough researchers to handle SENS research.

Ditto on the first point. Do keep in mind though that SENS Foundation has been trying to fill team lead positions for lysoSENS and oncoSENS since July. Talent is harder to find than you might think. Most academically trained researchers are curiosity driven, and do research because it interests them rather than to achieve any particular objective. That mindset is not necessarily compatible with longevity aims. Food for thought.


Good point Kelsi.

#25 churchill

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 88
  • Location:London

Posted 10 December 2012 - 03:40 PM

We need researchers AND money. However, at this particular point, it seems we have enough researchers to handle SENS research.

Ditto on the first point. Do keep in mind though that SENS Foundation has been trying to fill team lead positions for lysoSENS and oncoSENS since July. Talent is harder to find than you might think. Most academically trained researchers are curiosity driven, and do research because it interests them rather than to achieve any particular objective. That mindset is not necessarily compatible with longevity aims. Food for thought.

Well and more money will make filling the positions easier, as researchers will come from other disciplines, following the money trail.

Why do you say that mindset is not compatible? Do you say the same about cancer research and heart disease research?

Here is an article by Reason which elaborates more on the debate..
http://www.fightagin...life-spans.php

#26 Alizee

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 59 posts
  • 8
  • Location:MI

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:26 PM

Thanks everyone who posted in this forum.

I am going to stay in college and now I have a plan to get a biology degree, with premed requirements. I'm open to pharmacy/dental though. I plan to get an associate degree by the end of this year to have options.

I am siding with churchill on this one, but only because right now I can't help on the research. Maybe 4 years from now I can tell if I could really help, but I might not have what it takes to do it. There's too many variables. But I think every voice matters right now. I am working on a youth adult novel on the side dealing with life extension, since I think entertainment is a way to get it across. I was thinking of having a percentage of the profits go to the SENS foundation, since it's not only helping them but myself as well to live longer, but that's further down the line though. I don't want the image to look bad/silly either, so I'm still trying to plot it well.

Edited by Alizee, 19 December 2012 - 02:36 PM.


#27 churchill

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 88
  • Location:London

Posted 19 December 2012 - 03:07 PM

In reference to your family thinking you are nuts...

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Mahatma Gandhi

I think your novel idea sounds great, good luck with it. Have you thought about how you will promote it?

#28 Alizee

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 59 posts
  • 8
  • Location:MI

Posted 20 December 2012 - 01:03 PM

Thanks.

Not sure, I haven't given it much thought. But I look at it as this, there's little market for life extension novels besides the common, "better to enjoy time alive now then be bored forever", so I have to write a novel that people will read regardless of that. It's a love story and a coming of age story. The main purpose would be to see that life extension is a possible and people should have the right to do it.

Edited by Alizee, 20 December 2012 - 01:05 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#29 churchill

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 88
  • Location:London

Posted 20 December 2012 - 01:15 PM

Thanks.

Not sure, I haven't given it much thought. But I look at it as this, there's little market for life extension novels besides the common, "better to enjoy time alive now then be bored forever", so I have to write a novel that people will read regardless of that. It's a love story and a coming of age story. The main purpose would be to see that life extension is a possible and people should have the right to do it.


I am going to disagree with you right there, dark romance novels are huge. They are at their core about immortal beings (vampires) and they are cool and popular. Do it about vampire, set in the future blah blah, but give it a technological backing.

Do you actually enjoy writing, you could start just doing blog posting etc to get going in it, going for a book is quite a tricky strategy given how the publishing business is going?

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users