In case the health treat is not trivially treatable you might read up on the science about the specific type of cancer you got. There are a few percentage points to be gained by knowing the important factors that you can actually influence for your treatment results.
It is also a good time to form a strong opinion on cryogenics. (disclaimer, I did not do so myself yet, and might actually decide against it. But people I respect are all in)
I currently do not donate to any causes due to a lack of income. I volunteer my time in one area, which I am involved in for more than 10 years. But I do not do so because I wholeheartedly support the cause, it is just a very convenient place to try things out and a lot of fun.
In donating one usually does not give out too much of the income. Figures like 10% get used, and do not hurt the donor. When picking charities there are some services that explore how efficient a charity works. (And rationally one should choose the best and give only to that. But often one wants to give to some local causes, and also some non-locals). I would not give more than a charity can safely handle.
Friends of mine have small foundations that run on 2000€. There is no point in donating a big chunk, but I might add another 500 at some point.
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.
I currently do not donate to any causes due to a lack of income.
That usually leads to repeating “I can’t this year, but next year”. If you get money from any source at all, it may be a good idea to donate some of it. Now, if someone pays for your needs but doesn’t give you any money directly, that won’t work—but it’s much rarer.
In case the health treat is not trivially treatable you might read up on the science about the specific type of cancer you got. There are a few percentage points to be gained by knowing the important factors that you can actually influence for your treatment results.
It is also a good time to form a strong opinion on cryogenics. (disclaimer, I did not do so myself yet, and might actually decide against it. But people I respect are all in)
I currently do not donate to any causes due to a lack of income. I volunteer my time in one area, which I am involved in for more than 10 years. But I do not do so because I wholeheartedly support the cause, it is just a very convenient place to try things out and a lot of fun.
In donating one usually does not give out too much of the income. Figures like 10% get used, and do not hurt the donor. When picking charities there are some services that explore how efficient a charity works. (And rationally one should choose the best and give only to that. But often one wants to give to some local causes, and also some non-locals). I would not give more than a charity can safely handle.
Friends of mine have small foundations that run on 2000€. There is no point in donating a big chunk, but I might add another 500 at some point.
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.
That usually leads to repeating “I can’t this year, but next year”. If you get money from any source at all, it may be a good idea to donate some of it. Now, if someone pays for your needs but doesn’t give you any money directly, that won’t work—but it’s much rarer.
I currently life 100% off savings. And been doing this for a while, but in a few month that might change.
Any donation I would make now would directly reduce my time horizon.