In donating one usually does not give out too much of the income. Figures like 10% get used, and do not hurt the donor.
They very much do hurt the donor. The hurt of donating incorrectly is exactly the negative of the benefit of donating correctly.
Don’t think of it as spending 10% of my income, which I can live without. Think of it as spending 10% of my influence on my probability of not dying. I’m not looking for a charity to give to so I can feel better. I want to really actually increase my chances of survival as a result.
Actual longevity research is time consuming. Aubrey de Grey is support worthy, but I am not sure if that is the best way.
The futurist/longevity/SF cluster seems to systematically ignore some available influence factors on longevity. I am afraid if you are serious you have to dig into the topic yourself to some degree. But it looks difficult to do some spending now and actually get noteworthy effects from that in the near future. Getting rid of one cause of death still leaves the others out. I read somewhere that even beating all cancer types would only increase average livespans by 3 years.
Do you want to increase general livespan and/or healthy years enjoyed over all of humanity, or do you want to specifically work on your own most pressing health needs. The resulting actions are different.
They very much do hurt the donor. The hurt of donating incorrectly is exactly the negative of the benefit of donating correctly.
Don’t think of it as spending 10% of my income, which I can live without. Think of it as spending 10% of my influence on my probability of not dying. I’m not looking for a charity to give to so I can feel better. I want to really actually increase my chances of survival as a result.
Actual longevity research is time consuming. Aubrey de Grey is support worthy, but I am not sure if that is the best way.
The futurist/longevity/SF cluster seems to systematically ignore some available influence factors on longevity. I am afraid if you are serious you have to dig into the topic yourself to some degree. But it looks difficult to do some spending now and actually get noteworthy effects from that in the near future. Getting rid of one cause of death still leaves the others out. I read somewhere that even beating all cancer types would only increase average livespans by 3 years.
Do you want to increase general livespan and/or healthy years enjoyed over all of humanity, or do you want to specifically work on your own most pressing health needs. The resulting actions are different.