I think Mark's observation is correct. Anti-aging is far easier to fund than AGI because there are a lot more people interested in preserving their own lives than in creating AGI.... Furthermore, the M-prize money is to fund a **prize**, not directly to fund research on some particular project.... M-prize money is surely worthwhile, but is a different sort of thing...
Ben
On 10/22/06, Mark Nuzzolilo II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, there is funding like in the Methuselah Mouse project. I am one of
>"the 300" myself. With enough interested >people it should not be that
>hard to raise $5 million even on a very long term project. Most of us seem
>to think that >conquering aging will take longer than AGI but there are
>fairly successful funding efforts in that space. It is a lot easier >I
>imagine to find many people willing and able to donate on the order of
>$100/month indefinitely to such a cause than >to find one or a few people
>to put up the entire amount.
>I am sure that has already been kicked around. Why wouldn't it work
>though?
You can't just snap your fingers and raise $5 million for a cause with even
less public support than anti-aging research, whether you have 1 person with
$5 million dollars, or 4,167 people with $1200 a year. I fail to see how
the problem would be simplified in this way. I doubt any AGI company could,
at this point, find thousands of people willing to give even $10/month, let
alone $100. But that doesn't mean that it won't be possible in a few years.
AGI could, at any time, receive the funding and publicity that
nanotechnology has seen especially since the late 1990s.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
