> Reason, I take it that the first set of guidelines are
> things you are already doing along the same lines, so
Steaming along slowly; I have a day job, just like most people :)
> 1) donate content:
> By donating content, you mean content from people like
> Pearson and Shaw (is this what you mean by
> accredited), or lay people like me who use the
> life-extension "supplements," or both?
I mean useful content -- which could be either. IMHO, the best sorts of
a) articles from "names" -- people who are known or have cachet.
b) how-to and opinion articles on life extension from the laity [:)] that
tend to illustrate more strongly to joe public exactly how easy it is for
him to help/help himself. Look at the articles on www.lef.org -- there are
some excellent first person accounts on there that have motivated and
informed me considerably.
c) call to arms articles from anyone
Feel free to add to this list.
> The reason I ask is I have just been assigned an
> editorial position for a "supplement" company in the
> UK (so much for just being a violin teacher), and this
> is read by several people in the medical industry
> there, and probably by some life extension researchers
> as well. I may have access to content on all sides of
> the issue--research, 'scripts, government, laws,
All suitable donations and permissions greatly appreciated.
> Is there a chace you or someone else could do the
> legal research instead of using non-profit advice?
> Access to a law library is about all that would be
> necessary. I realize ancient English is difficult at
> best to understand, but not impossible.
I do perform a lot of my own legal research, but there's only so far that a
non-lawyer should go in the U.S. Even in something as simple as writing
nonprofit bylaws, you quickly run into legal gray areas (usually due to
poorly defined requirements on the part of some agency or other) that may
cause you serious trouble later on.
> Aren't there others on this list with good legal
A question I would echo.
> 5) be cheerleaders; advocate, get your friends to
> visit the site, tell everyone you know.
> Important point. Purchase email lists from others? I
> know I get on people's email lists and get told I
> signed up for this newsletter or that quote-of-the-day
> when I did no such thing. I don't get irritated
> because I have found some VERY good sources of
> what-not out there because of it.
I'm more in favor of usenet, banner exchanges, and using existing
sympathetic mailing lists and bulletin boards to spread the word. Takes less
effort, and kicks off viral marketing effects more rapidly. I've been doing
the online publicity thing for a while and in a number of arenas, but you
never stop learning -- all suggestions gratefully acccepted.
> Email lists could be gotten from the companies that
> supply antiaging supplements, etc.
Cutting friendly exchanges with people like VRP (vrpcentral.net) and LEF
(lef.org) to get mentioned in their newsletters is a good thing to do. They
wouldn't give up their mailing lists -- it's a violation of stated privacy
policies and rude to their customers. Bad for business -- but getting
mentions in their newsletters is a good thing.
It's always in these company's interests to make nice with life extension
activism groups; great source of new and dedicated customers for them.
> As far as the list coordinating efforts, it sounds
> like most of them are involved in many things, so I
> don't know if it could be a fulltime job for anyone,
> really. But if everyone could allocate two hours per
> week that's a lot of manhours dedicated.
The money just really isn't there to full-time anyone on the project until
you have a sizable community. Donations would go on funding projects
utilizing volunteer time rather than on paying administration.
> You said a list is a bad way to coordinate more than
> one topic at a time, but isn't the singluar topic
> support of antiaging research and putting the screws
> to governments to let it happen? Sounds pretty
Well, yes and no. As I was pointing out in a private e-mail yesterday,
putting the screws to governments is the first instinct of anyone motivated
to do something (certainly over here in the US). I don't think I live in a
world in which I have to encourage anyone to put the screws to governments
instead of following some other course of action.
The problem, as I see it, is that there aren't enough people ready to do
something. That is the problem that I want to aim at; the essential shift in
attitude towards aging, life extension and death. People must stop viewing
aging as natural and view it as a condition that can one day be cured. They
must stop seeing these things as inevitable and start seeing them as
reversible. The false conceptions of life extension that people have must be
dispelled. Options to do something, to contribute something, must be given
to the man in the street.
In essence, it's an education thing for the masses and the media, plus
providing a constructive outlet for everyone who wants to help, in no matter
how small a way. It took 10-15-20 years of hard-fought activism to get
somewhere useful with AIDs...but those are the sorts of results we want to
aim for in public awareness and public contributions.
Putting the screws to governments is a natural outgrowth of this education;
a second-order effect, if you like.
> Yes, Reason, our lives would get extended, too, you
> are right. And possibly more so than most others
> because--and this is just opinion mentally supported
> by word of mouth--philanthropists (which I see
> transhumanists are the cream of) have the joy of
> helping others instead of letting god sort it out. I
> read years ago that it is like petting animals, the
> more you do the more it extends your life and quality
> of it.
I should probably mention that altruism is not at the top of my list of
reasons for doing all of this. :) The rest of the human race gets dragged
along with us because it can't be done without them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:42 MDT