Transhumanist Media Content


We, as well as the leaders of transhumanism all over the world, have a challenge to deal with. It is the development of a convincing advertising, agitprop content that attracts attention to our topic. We also must impel people to act in favor of radical life extension. We need video-blogs, scientific and popular science lectures, movies, ads and virus videos. We hardly have anything, and anyway if there’s something then it’s rather low quality.

On the other hand, the problem is that all the movies and presentations demonstrated in different countries did not cause much impact. The number of supporters is growing, but incredibly slow. It may seem that the flow of «natural information» about the scientific progress has to draw an educated listener to a conclusion that radical life extension is possible and that it’s their top priority. However, in reality we observe the unwillingness of people to consider fighting death.

There is a vicious cycle: a large budget is needed to create a good media product, but in order to have a large budget, one needs to have a persuasive media product.

Nevertheless, our task is to create relevant content, even in these straitent circumstances, in order to improve everyone’s and our own chances to survive.

This is where we face an insanely complicated question: why is it, that all the previous activities of many people startign from the end on the 19th century, didn’t lead to success? And another, even more complicated question – how can we finally become persuasive?

Even one argument would be sufficient for us: there’s so little being done for life extension in the whole world, the amount of resources allocated to scientific research is negligible. When we engage in public discussions, we come across an absolutely irrational, controvircial and suicidal position.

Approving of death and reluctance of physical immortality have a complex set of reasons.

Philosophers of the past tried to justify death, seeing its inevetability. It was impossible to realize that умкн single human life collapses, ends with a tragedy. It’s obvious that the very nature of any human being strives towards undying, however, not seeing such a possibility, the humanity lost itself in religious illusions.

People have always died from aging and they are not capable of imagining that things can be different.

Because of that in the cultural context people started to concieve immortality as something bad, even as a punishment.

Also, human mind is set in a way to avoid the terrifying thoughts about death. Therefore, it’s much easier not to think about the inevitable death from aging, than to do something about it.

A person is very much afraid of death «right here, right now», but there’s no genetically coded fear of death in 30-40 years. That’s the reason why the value of an extra long life doesn’t meet the corresponding program of our minds’ activity.

There has always been a dilemma in the propaganda of transhumanism ideas – whether it’s best to tell the people first of all what they can understand and then move gradually from there, or to advocate the concept of a new and beautiful world without death, dealing at the same time with the risk to gain the character of a loony.

In the fisrt case, we are talking about some age-related disease and tell the people that it has its molecular basis, which actually is aging that we need to fight against. In the course of our work we see that this approach gets approval, however it gets no enthusiasm, it doesn’t drive people to any actions at all.

In the second scenario, we have much fewer supporters, but among those there are true enthusiasts, fans, which we ourselves are.

There’s also a question about what audience we are talking to: educated people, ones who already are interested, people with resources, the youth, the elderly, scientists, people who don’t want to die, people who want to look good, self-motivated people, voters, politicians, ones who want to get healed, ones looking for friends and like-minded people, the ambitios, ones who want to make money, ones who want to help people, ones striving towards justice, ones who want to help lots of people, doctors, patients, ones aspiring to gain knowledge, ones looking for social guaranties, middlebrows, heroes, parents, children?

Judging from the knowledge we have, our relatively rich work experience, we believe that first of all we have to focus on people with an active social position, on innovators. In this case, creation of content is the subjust of interaction with a particular person. Meaning that our work must be focused on personal communications, on building a social network, on creating the community, on creating an informal and folmal organisations. The idea, that ok, here we go and tell everyone about scientific news in the area of life extension and show the ways to become immortal, hasn’t worked on its own anywhere in the world. Every time we ahve to see a particular person and envision clearly what exactly we want from them. First of all, we want this person to become the same power engine in the area of transhumanism, as we are ourselves. It’s possible that a couple dozen people in the world will change the situation, more precisely, will accelerate the change. By creating the video content we have to come up with a non-trivial solution that is more likely to achieve the result.

18 Comments

Filed under Marketing

18 responses to “Transhumanist Media Content

  1. Javier

    It’s important to connect with the broader public on an emotional level. To inspire them and show them how the world can look like if we solve this. You want to articulate a vision they can fall in love with and make them think. Hollywood can probably help.

    Isn’t there huge interest from corporations to invest in R&D for anti-aging? It could be big business. Of course, blue sky research will also be necessary.

    • Sure, Hollywood can do a great job, however there’s problem of communicating the idea to Hollywood producers.

      There is no doubt the real anti-aging therapies will be a huge business, because the market is as large as the population of the world. But there’s zero interest from either the pharma companies, or any other kind of corporations. In my opinion, even a couple of large companies like Google can make us immortal, of course if they wanted to.

  2. Sad as it may seem to some, even pictures like the one posted above (if slightly more “Transhuman” — say, showing her with a robot hand or something) could very quickly help spread the idea of Transhumanism. Attractive woman + cool bionic limb = salivating nerds who will probably follow any link you wanna tack under the picture. Stuff like this is of course happening a lot already, but it could really be big if it found its way onto billboards or TV commercials.

  3. General lack of interest in radical life extension is similar to the resistence UN personel found when trying to stamp out smallpox. Many people thought that the disease was a natural phenomena that ought to be accepted rather than fought against. Frankly, most people I’ve talked to want to die in a normal span (it may have something to do with how they are living their lives too).

    My suggestion is to go with quality, not quantity. The people who want to radically extend their life are a minority, but a financially and intellectually powerful minority can move this technology forward very fast.

    • One other thing, there is a rational argument that if people start living much longer then the population will get even bigger and we will run out of resources and everyone will live in poverty. But this new emerging technology counters that argument: There is a new clean energy technology that is one tenth the cost of coal. LENR using nickel. Incredibly: Ni+H(heated under pressure)=Cu+lots of heat. This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

      “Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry.” –Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA

  4. I think Aubrey de Grey is on to something when he advocates presenting the goal not as “living forever”, but as “living as long as you want to”. Many people find the concept of immortality too unbelievable to take seriously, but could more easily imagine life expectancy being, say, doubled (as it was during the 20th century). It also puts the emphasis on individual will and preference, which defuses the problem you mention, that in folklore immortality is sometimes depicted as a curse or punishment from which a person cannot escape.

    Brad Arnold touches on another issue — there’s a whole cluster of ill-informed but common objections people typically raise. Overpopulation — people will get bored if they live forever — social progress will stagnate if old elites don’t die off — the wealthy will monopolize the technology for themselves — etc. There are responses to all of these — I’ve written several — but any educational effort needs to have such responses at the ready to meet the common objections.

    At least within the United States, it might be best to avoid the subject of religion entirely. Of course you’re right that the comforting religious concept of an afterlife is an illusion, but in the United States (we are behind other advanced countries in this regard), many people still take religion seriously, and will become hostile if they feel it is being disrespected. Probably best to avoid the distraction.

  5. Ашыке ща all = First of all?
    =)

  6. Your lament seems to be that there isn’t an effective mechanism yet developed to attract common interest and support to life extension therapies and research, yes? Consider …

    Aubrey de Grey has posited seven basic terminal medical conditions he believes can be successfully repaired via a under-development treatment regimen. So, seven different YouTube videos showning an ambulance delivering a patient in critical condition with one of the seven conditions. The patient is wheeled into a treatment room and a quick discussion of potential treatments and outcomes ensues. The patient is then wheeled into a modern ER and the reality of current treatment is described. How to become involved, donate, etc follows. Time length of each video presentation/drama – 5 to 6 minutes max. Cost? As much as you can come up with, but as little as an inventive vidoegrapher can contrive too.

    Following the same format, it should be possible to present several dramatic variations on the seven basic de Grey posits.

    There is no one answer to the problem you address, but this is one possible means of beginning the process of attracting a more effective (and hopefully better funded and more talented) messenger. How is your spoken English? Your still photo leads me to think your so-far-hypothetical videographer won’t have far to look to find a compelling on-screen presenter for each episode.

    • Maria is stunningly beautiful, and the thought of her growing old and senescience robbing her of that vitality is obscene. I am so thankful that she is fighting for this first generation of transhumanists, and the notion of her gaining fame producing videos on life extension is sweet. She is a big asset to humanity and we are lucky for her efforts.

    • You are right. That’s exactly what’s bothering me, but I certainly understand that the problem doesn’t have one solution, otherwise it would have been already found.
      Your idea with patients and the ‘new ER’ sounds very good, because it’s patient-oriented. In my opinion, it’s easier to communicate the particular damages, their consequences and possible treatments in the SENS approach. However, I was referring more to the broader scope of transhumanism-related videos and other media materials.

      • Luckily, this has already been done by our new friend/buddy/pal, Adam Savage of MythBusters fame. He advocates 1,000-year lifepspans in a very entertaining way in a new episode of Discovery Channel’s Curiosity show called “Can You Live Forever?” I have some issues with it, but overall, it’s well worth viewing—especially for the segment about the SENS Foundation’s senescent T-cell scrubber about 22 minutes into the show.


        .

  7. That should have read, “The patient is wheeled into a treatment room and a quick discussion of potential life extension treatments and outcomes (such as the necessity for repeat treatments when the condition eventually re-occurs) ensues.

  8. I really enjoy all the positive comments you guys did, thank you. Superba recomandare, Florin

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s