On Dec 23, 2014, at 2:34 AM, email@example.com wrote:
> Dear Reason:
> Up to a point you are correct. However, in the 4 1’2 years since its inception, the LDIC has not raised a single dollar for increased aging research despite having all of the heavyweight non-profits as members.
> When a result as sharp as this appears, I think that it is essential to question the very ways in which we are trying to increase funding.
> The main problem is NOT in having too few approaches (diversity) it is that we, as a sophisticated aging research community , can’t get off the
> ground with proven, classical fund raising methods.
> NOTE: The large amounts of money essential to increasing quality aging research precludes “mom & pop store” ideas which can only raise small
> amounts of funds. What I’m calling for is :
> “Our aging research community needs to get real by adopting good business practices which have been proven to work”. With Google-Calico-AbbVie
> entering the aging research picture I think that we will see EXACTLY that.
In my first post in the Fundraising discussion, I explained why this is backwards.
You are proposing normal fundraising methods for a superior, not normal, cause. Normal methods do not leverage this superiority. Instead they mean competing as an equal (at best) with inferior rivals.
The superiority anti-aging has is it’s actually more important and has better reasoned arguments than most other causes. Classical fund raising methods don’t utilize that advantage. Actually they diminish that advantage, e.g. matching donation fundraisers are dishonest, disrespect donors (treating them as sheep to be manipulated), and distance anti-aging from reason/intelligence. And by doing this, it preferentially tries to create a community of sheep (because it’s optimized for them and alienating to others) – it’s not a huge effect but it pushes things in that counter-productive direction.