I honestly don't see anything here that isn't applause lights.

The main things I want to know

The main thing I see is that the purpose remains extremely under-defined, and there won't be very much interest until you have something more specific than "making the world a better place". We already discussed the distinction between conventional causes and transhumanist causes, but then there are so many other considerations.

Consider the problems faced by a suicidal teenager, a stressed sales manager, or a schizophrenic living on the street. Their problems are not cleanly solvable problems - 'do this differently, and we're done'; they would involve a complex tangle of personality traits and external circumstances. And yet problems of that sort are far more typical of what people complain about. People generally don't complain about universal conditions like "everybody has to die" or "everybody has to work"; it's more like, my child is failing in school, I'm gaining weight, and I don't know how I will make next month's mortgage payment, and it's all so unfair because I'm being a good person and trying to do something for the planet by saving to buy solar panels.

The fabric of human suffering, if I can call it that, consists mostly of chronic annoyances, frustrations, and disappointments possessing this highly particular and personal character, punctuated by harsher events, whose frequency in space and time is sharply peaked around wars and natural disasters.

Returning to what you want to know: who supports your future organization will be decided by the specific answer you give to the question, what exactly are we trying to do? Most people already have some idea of what causes they want to support. A few people might be interested in reconsidering from first principles which causes they should support. But no-one is going to commit to anything on the basis of what you've written so far, because the one thing that the world is not short of, is organizations asking for our moral, financial, and practical support. So we're all waiting for further details.

I didn't read this post. But I did like the pictures!

This seems like a very long version of:

Step 1: Be Rational. Step 2: Act. Step 3: ???? Step 4: Profit!

I suspect there is no #3.

Upvoted because the art is hilarious and charming.

I've thought more or less the thoughts you describe, or at least thought thoughts that would impel me to write what you've written, in the past (chronologically recent, mentally pretty distant; the two get out of sync when you spend too much of your time thinking). My beliefs/plans are quite different by now (in particular "determine how well rationalists can make money," "make money,"and "hire rationalists" have taken on much more central significance); I don't know if you are likely to go in a similar direction, but it might be worth talking about it on Skype or via IM.

Your proposal sounds a little naive, which you might want to work on as a sales thing. Regardless, I appreciate where you are coming from and am enthusiastic about helping as long as there seems to be a reasonable chance of success.

Well good luck with everything, and make sure you have a route out if something goes wrong. I'm trying to work towards a masters of doctorate in economics once I reach university, for example, but if I am unable to do that, I have the option of simply becoming an economist or assistant economist etc.

I'll PM you if it looks likely to work out, or already has... adds to list\.

EDIT: Can I ask, how do I add an asterisk on this forum without them being read as Italics? (It indicates an action in a lot of forum-dialects.)

I've had similar ideas, but am closer to your current thinking than (I think) paulfchristiano is. Your enthusiasm is nice, and I want you to be successful, but the devil's in the details.

Whether people see such an organization working

Yes, but making an organization work is actually really really hard.

And I don't see much in this post addressing those challenges beyond pointing out that they do in fact need to be addressed. Your "People Stuff", "Welcome", "Think", and "Act" Sections seem to be where the meat of how this organization would actually function, and I see almost no development of the ideas of how it actually works.

Like, no object-level analysis about how you do "people stuff" or how the organization would "act". Unpacking a bit of your thinking on quotes like:

I would see us reaching out to altruistic individuals and organizations; finding people who are confused, who need help or who are still looking for the right approach. The idea is not to turn them all into rationalists, but rather to use our own rational skills to help and guide them.

would also benefit the article greatly. Are we only trying to help other altruists because that's easier? Because there are more of them? Or because making people identify as rationalists isn't the best marginal use of our time with regards to world saving?

Whether they see it as fundamentally different from anything which currently exists

Not really, it seems like what we want is in some ways this, but more effective, more ambitious, and with higher impact. With a bit of community thrown in?

Whether they would want to be a part of it.

Yes. It would be awesome if what (I think) you're aiming for got working.

I admire your enthusiasm and vision, but I think it needs to be tempered with some realism. What your trying to do is fantastic, but the unfortunately reality is that LW is ultimately an online interaction, and thus has certain limits that would severly impair an initiative such as this. To give you an idea here's my own personal hurdles in fully embracing this:

a) I already engage in face-to-face communities which whilst differnt to what you have described shares many similar values. Energy into this means less energy into them, and currently those groups reap the most reward.

b) to offer good advice to each other we need to know about each other. Whilst I can obtain huge amounts of useful advice from LW in terms of my own rationality, and how I can evanglize it, employ it etc. in terms of my actual day to day situation I can really rely on this place, for example: what should I do about Chris' depression? That's not to say I couldn't get any advice, but truly helpful stuff would be a bit beyond us because none of you know Chris.

c) If I were to devote more energy to a project such as this, it would be too the Less Wrong Sydney Meetup as posted on this site, as having face-to-face meetings and interactions has considerably more potential than something that would have too, for a long time remain online.

d) These values you can play out in day to day life without too much trouble.

I don't want to discourage you, on the contrary I think your desire to do something like this is wonderful, but we want you to be effective. I personally think a great place to start channeling this energy would your local LW Meetup if you have one, and if not, maybe make one. The NYC chapter I think is a great success story and shows the potential benefits of carrying through with your type of energy and enthusiasm.