IBG survey results

 

ABSTRACT:

 

“Destruction of the Grim Reaper is my dream”

 

“I long to participate and would feel very proud!”

 

“If I had to admit one all-consuming passion, this would be it.”

 

METHOD

 

“I think it is one of the most interesting problems accessible to us”

 

“I think I get good ideas all the time. I participate actively in the imminst forums.”

 

“On Aubrey’s recommendation I am currently studying ‘Molecular Biology of the Cell’.”

 

The internet-based survey questionnaire was advertised from a substantial number of well-visited internet sites from the anti-aging community. Care was taken to include only sites that advocate a genuine scientific approach to the problem of aging. The following web-sites posted banner links to the survey, and/or advertised it in their newsletters:

 

Betterhumans:                                                     http://www.betterhumans.com

Kurzweil AI:                                                        http://www.kurzweilai.net

The Immortality Institute:                                 http://www.imminst.org

The Longevity Meme:                                       http://www.longevitymeme.org

The Nanoaging Institute:                                  http://www.nanoaging.org

The World Transhumanist Association:        http://www.transhumanism.org

Anti-ageing medicine:                                       http://anti-ageing.us

 

The survey was conducted from 01/01/2005 to 02/24/2005, when participation had leveled off.

 

The goals and concept of the IBG were briefly explained to participants and they were provided with a link to de Grey’s original proposal¹, where they could obtain further information. Participants were assured that their participation in the survey would not have any involuntary consequences for them and the support they would indicate was not binding, even if they chose to identify themselves. 

 

The questions were presented on distinct sheets, grouped by topic. Participants were allowed to go back to earlier sheets if they reconsidered during the survey. Results were only saved at the end. Most sheets contained an additional field that allowed participants to rid themselves of any comments or ideas they might have pertaining to the sheet.

After providing basic demographic information (sheet1), participants were asked how much money they would donate on a one-time or regular basis, if the IBG was set up and in need of philanthropic money (sheet2). If participants indicated a range, then the mean was used. Entries that were not marked as one-time or regular donations were counted as one time. All regular donations were calculated as per annum.

Sheet3 asked whether participants were willing to move to and participate personally in the project, if the IBG were set up in Singapore. Singapore was picked as a site, because it is far away from nearly everyone, and moving there should require some substantial personal readjustments. Thus, it was thought that the measure would tap only fairly strongly committed participants and avoid false positives.

Sheet4 asked for participants’ field of activity and official academic qualifications. Those who had indicated to move to Singapore and join the IBG were also asked for any special qualifications and unconventional ideas they might have to get the project ahead.

Sheet5 emphasized that funding may always be the limiting factor for the IBG project. Those who had indicated to participate in the project were asked whether they would be willing to work for a reduced salary, if food and housing were provided or not and whether they would bring any dependents.

Sheet6 asked if, given that funding remained the limiting factor, participants would be willing to work extra hours in an unrelated profession, simply to raise funds for the IBG, and how much funds that would be.

Sheet7 allowed participants to identify themselves and provide a contact e-mail, but emphasized that identification was entirely voluntary and would have no involuntary consequences for the participant nor affect the survey results.

Sheet8 asked for general comments and provided a link to the debriefing page where participants were thanked for their contribution.

 

RESULTS

 

“Antarctica would be preferable to Singapore.”

 

„I already live there. Nothing would make me happier to work for something i believe in in my own backyard =)“

 

“Though the Singapore initiative is interesting, the big money is still in the US and the passage of prop 71 in California shows that a majority of US citizens will support and even demand this sort of research regardless of Bush's position.   I also believe that reaching out and educating those who have concerns about the ethics of this sort of research is a much better long-term solution then trying to bypass them.”

 

The 76 participants indicated a total of $48,287 immediate donations plus $7,134 per year. Most one-time donations were in the $50-500 range or above $1000. Most annual donations were in the 50-500 range. (Table 1)

 

            

Table 1a: Distribution of one-time donations

 

Table 2: Distribution of annual donations

 

Only 9 out of 76 participants were female, confirming immortalists’ gender distribution found in other studies (Badger 1998, Schloendorn 2005). Males also donated more money than females (1-time donation per head mean $344(m) vs. $75(f), p<0.03 and monthly mean $1499(m) vs. $38(f), p<0.07) Again confirming Schloendorn (2005), no correlation of magnitude of donation with age was found (ANOVA p>0.3 for either donation type). Badger (1998), on the other hand, found some age effects on attitudes towards cryonics, but did not measure donation. The distribution of professional fields among participants is shown in Table 3. The formal qualifications of those participants willing to join the IBG and specifically those with a life-science education is shown are shown in Table 4 and 5. “Work” designates >10 years work experience without a degree. All PhD holders had some work experience and a sound publication record.

 

 

Table 3: Professional distribution of the survey participants.

 

Table 4: Formal qualifications of all participants willing to join

 

Table 5: Formal qualifications of those participants willing to join with a life-science background

 

DISCUSSION

 

“Perhaps it is time for a big PR campaign.”

 

“I do not get bored!”

 

“There certainly is a need for IT.”

 

To me, a total of 76 survey participants seems alarmingly low. It appears that the IBG as a coordinated “Manhattan Project” to develop a cure for aging would satisfy the requirements of most persons willing to commit themselves to live much longer or indefinitely (immortalists). It could be argued that such a project could ultimately unite the efforts of the presently very grassrooty and scattered immortalist community. Thus, it seems unlikely that many immortalists would know of the survey and not indicate their support.

Is thus 76 close to the number of persons on earth that are at least in principle interested in engaging in work dedicated to relieve the blight of human aging? If so, then immortalists should be undetectable in marketing experiments addressing an average internet audience. This is clearly not the case (Badger 1998, Schloendorn 2005).

There are basically two mutually non-exclusive ideas that can explain the discrepancy between immortalists’ detectability in standard populations and the low numbers of participants in the survey: 1) Many potential immortalists out there do not know about the respective internet community, or do not consider it useful to regularly interact with it. 2) Many immortalists do attend these websites, but do not think the IBG was worth helping along. Given the IBG’s scope and design and the enormous reputation that its leading proponent, Dr. de Grey, enjoys in the community, it is not clear why the latter mechanism should be hugely important.

What remains is another cry to massively address any un- or misinformed potential immortalists out there, convincingly educate them about the feasibility life-extension and attract them to the community’s emerging infrastructure.

 

The large gender bias in immortalist populations enjoyed recent speculative discussion (Schloendorn, 2005) and will thus not be commented here.

 

A peculiar distribution of professional occupation was found. For some reason, most immortalists seem to have a computer science background, while the obviously most relevant biosciences come in second. This effect would deserve investigation from a psychological and marketing point of view. Perhaps marketing should preferentially target computer scientists. A large fraction of business people raises hopes to alleviate the community’s financial issues.

 

Participants’ distribution of formal qualifications

 

During the 10 years that the IBG¹ is estimated to run until its first goal of robust mouse rejuvenation can be achieved, all donations taken together (including the yearly ones) would amount to roughly $120,000. This falls short of the estimated requirements ($3 Billion) by four orders of magnitude.

It could be asked when the IBG could be funded by donations from the community, given its present growth variables. This was estimated from the membership growth curve of the Immortality Institute (ImmInst), because they offer particularly transparent data. The Immortality Institute’s membership growth has been fairly constantly ~70 new members per month in the past two years, which corresponds to a linear, rather than exponential growth rate (which would be expressible as “X % of the current membership per month”). Presuming that the number of ImmInst members roughly correlates with total number of immortalists and that every immortalist can, on average, make the same contribution, one can arrive at an estimate, when the surveyed community will be able to afford the IBG.

If roughly 2,000 members (Feb 2005) correspond to $120,000 IBG funding, then 40,000,000 ImmInst members, or at the current growth rate, 50,000 years of growth would be getting near corresponding to $3 Billion funding, which is clearly less than acceptable. According to these data, alternative routes of funding **must** be found and charitable donation from the immortalist community is a negligible factor in funding large immortalist projects.

 

 

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

 

“Thanks and all my best to Aubrey, one of the world's true unsung heroes.“

 

“No - I would run the IBG!”

 

“We are never absolutely safe and that enfuriates me.”

 

“I want to be young and beautiful again and live forever, but i have no r&d skills.”

 

“I would be afraid of what would take place in the facility;”

 

“Why the hell don't those of us who are serious about living forever migrate to a physical location and get the hell to work?“

 

 

Thanks to:

 

- All Participants!

 

- A certain subset of participants for a good laugh on their comments – you know who you are (sorry I did not retrieve all of these – maybe later)

 

 

REFERENCES

 

 

 

Badger S (1998) An exploratory survey examining the familiarity with and attitudes toward cryonic preservation. Journal of Evolution and Technology vol. 3

 

Schloendorn J (2005) Negative data from the psychological frontline. Journal of Evolution and Technology 14:1 (www.jetpress.org/volume14/schloendorn.html)

 

FOOTNOTES