[F]ew members of [LessWrong] seem to be aware of the current state of the anti-aging field, and how close we are to developing effective anti-aging therapies. As a result, there is a much greater (and in my opinion, irrational) overemphasis on the Plan B of cryonics for life extension, rather than Plan A of solving aging. Both are important, but the latter is under-emphasised despite being a potentially more feasible strategy for life extension given the potentially high probability that cryonics will not work.
I think there is a good reason for there being more focus on cryonics than solving aging on LessWrong. Cryonics is a service anyone with the means can purchase right now, whereas there is barely anything anyone can do to slow their aging (modulo getting young blood transfusion and perhaps taking a few drugs, neither of which work that well).
If you are a billionaire, or very knowledgeable about biology, you might be able to contribute somewhat to anti-aging research — but only a very small fraction of the population is either of those things, whereas pretty much anyone that can get life insurance in the US can get cryopreserved.
I agree that the LessWrong community can have a positive impact on the cryonics field by signing up for cryonics and direct more capital in to this extremely under-funded field. Cryonics is especially relevant for people older than 40 today who are much less likely to make it to longevity escape velocity.
However, I disagree that (1) there is barely anything people can do now to slow their aging and (2) there is barely anything that the average person can do to support the research and development of anti-aging therapies. I plan to write a separate post covering these points, but I’ll provide a few thoughts here.
Regarding (1), there are a multitude of actions you can take now to slow your aging and risk of age-related diseases (disclaimer: NOT a substitute for medical advice):
Dasatinib—a senolytic usually used in combination with quercetin
In my cupboard at home, I have a bunch of these pills, as do other people involved in this field who are involved in this research. If you watch interviews from Harvard aging researcher David Sinclair, you will see he takes these supplements, as do many of his millions of followers. These are probably a good starting point given Sinclair is one of the most knowledgeable and researchers in the field.
Ultimately, much or all of the above strategies will be superseded by superior anti-aging technologies in the future (gene therapies, nanotechnologies etc.) but they are a good starting point for increasing longevity and bringing more awareness to the field.
A nice article about a 32-year old biohacker who spent $200k on biohacking his health based on the research is here.
Regarding (2), there are many ways to contribute to the field:
Learn more about the field and discuss it with others, to increase public awareness of the field to help increase:
Government expenditure in geroscience research, which is a crucial bottleneck
Larger private donations to organizations like SENS
Financing of longevity biotech startups
The above are important actions since funding into the basic geroscience research is a key rate-limiting step in progressing the field. There is a fair amount of money to finance the longevity biotech companies, but funding for geroscience is pitifully small—less than 0.2% ($100 million) of the NIH’s $45 billion budget, even though the NIA for example, has a budget of around $3 billion. Moreover, organisations such as SENS finance some of the best research in the field have even smaller budgets ($5-10 million) which is why private small donations can still have a significant impact.
The personal strategies for slowing aging are interesting, but I was under the impression that your post’s primary thesis was that we should give money to, work for, and volunteer for anti-aging organizations. It’s difficult to see how doing any of that would personally make me live longer, unless we’re assuming unrealistic marginal returns to more effort.
In other words, it’s unclear why you’re comparing anti-aging and cryonics in the way you described. In the case of cryonics, people are looking for a selfish return. In the case of funding anti-aging, people are looking for an altruistic return. A more apt comparison would be about prioritizing cryonics vs. personal anti-aging strategies, but your main post didn’t discuss personal anti-aging strategies.
Both are important. Anti-aging is unique in the following way: since all of us are slowly dying of aging, it’s in our best interest to want the field progress for selfish reasons, but also our altruistic interest for society to solve aging as soon as possible, as this saves millions or billions of human life years.
On a personal level, maximising the probability of reaching longevity escape velocity is a min/max problem with two important variables: (1) maximising personal lifespan, by adopting personal longevity strategies (2) minimising the time until society reaches longevity escape velocity by helping to progress the longevity field.
You can think of it as a ‘race against time’ - to live forever (or at least, a very long time) one has to live in the subset of worlds which represents the intersection of society achieving longevity escape velocity, and one living long enough to make the cut, to avoid being among the last generations to die.
Personal longevity strategies are important, since a few years of additional life from longevity strategies could be the difference as to whether one makes it to reach longevity escape velocity or not. I suspect that many baby boomers may, unfortunately, miss the cut, but many Millenials and Gen Z’s could make it, particularly if they are proactive with longevity strategies. Progressing the field is also important, as living to 150 with personal longevity strategies doesn’t mean much if you fall 5 years short of reaching LEV because timelines were too long, for example.
Now, as to which is more important—personal longevity strategies or progressing the field—it’s unclear. Aubrey de Grey in his recent interview with me stated that the latter is much more important, since future therapies will vastly improve healthspan more than anything we can do today, and thus bringing these therapies into the world as soon as possible is the main priority for those who wish to make it to longevity escape velocity. This would suggest that money is perhaps better spent on SENS Research Foundation to support anti-aging research rather than purchasing resveratrol or a gym membership.
However, others I’ve spoken to in the field such as Sebastian Brunemeier who has co-founded two longevity biotech companies (Samsara Therapeutics and Cyclone Therapeutics) think that both progressing the field and adopting personal strategies are important. In his recent talk that our society, he alluded to his personal approach to longevity which involves taking anti-aging pills, meditating, exercising and more. I have a PDF of his full anti-aging protocol and it’s fairly sophisticated.
As an aside, approaches (1) and (2) are mutually supportive. The more people who adopt personal longevity strategies, the more attention (and in the long run, funding) the research side gets, since people are engaging with the research to guide their personal approach to longevity. And the more research that occurs, the better informed the population are to guide their personal longevity strategies.
On a population level, maximising the probability that most people alive today similarly requires optimising both (1) people’s personal longevity strategies and (2) the progression of the field. Overall, I’m inclined to think the latter is more important, although the former is important for those who wish to personally make it to longevity escape velocity in their lifetime.
Therefore, although the purpose of the original post was to highlight the need to increase research funding into anti-aging, adopting personal longevity strategies is also potentially important—both individually, and to bring more attention to the field.
I strongly support anti-aging research. I’m not clear on what your criticism is of cryonics. Perhaps I missed where you explained why you think that cryonics will not work? For example, where in the Drake equation does your probability differ from Steve Harris’s or Mike Perry’s?
Also, you point out the large number of organizations and companies involved in aging research. Surely the fact that there are way fewer in cryonics means that it is has merit from an underfunding perspective?
The estimates of Harris and Perry that cryonics doesn’t work range from 23% to 99.8% - which are potentially quite high (as I phrased it in the OP). Cryonics might work, but there’s a potentially very good chance that it doesn’t.
I agree that cryonics is underfunded even more than aging research. It seems likely that an increase in funding to cryonics could increase the probability that cryonics works, by improving the chance of success of the following variables:
Favorable conditions for suspension
Suspension preserves enough information
Mishap-free storage
Nanotechnology is perfected
Cryonic revival is “cheap enough”
At the very least, it would help to reduce the uncertainty regarding some of the parameters, providing as a clearer picture of the feasibility of cryonics.
However, several of the parameters would be likely to be unaffected by increased funding:
Materialism is correct
Identity encoded in structure
Sufficient social stability
Cryonics is continuously legal
Nanotechnology is physically possible
Cryonic revival is permitted
Ideally, both cryonics and anti-aging would receive more funding.
The intention of my post was not to encourage reductions in funding into cryonics; rather, to increase awareness among LessWrongers readers about anti-aging.
However, several of the parameters would be likely to be unaffected by increased funding:
Cryonics is continuously legal
Cryonic revival is permitted
On the contrary, I very much expect that more funding would help with these factors. The success of cryonics is limited by sociopolitical factors, and the more people who have buy-in, the more likely people are to be protected when in long-term cryopreservation.
The intention of my post was not to encourage reductions in funding into cryonics; rather, to increase awareness among LessWrongers readers about anti-aging.
On the contrary, I very much expect that more funding would help with these factors. The success of cryonics is limited by sociopolitical factors, and the more people who have buy-in, the more likely people are to be protected when in long-term cryopreservation.
Yeah, that seems likely. Certainly ‘the social problem’ (which combines several of the parameters) in general will reduce in likelihood the more funding cryonics receives.
I think there is a good reason for there being more focus on cryonics than solving aging on LessWrong. Cryonics is a service anyone with the means can purchase right now, whereas there is barely anything anyone can do to slow their aging (modulo getting young blood transfusion and perhaps taking a few drugs, neither of which work that well).
If you are a billionaire, or very knowledgeable about biology, you might be able to contribute somewhat to anti-aging research — but only a very small fraction of the population is either of those things, whereas pretty much anyone that can get life insurance in the US can get cryopreserved.
I agree that the LessWrong community can have a positive impact on the cryonics field by signing up for cryonics and direct more capital in to this extremely under-funded field. Cryonics is especially relevant for people older than 40 today who are much less likely to make it to longevity escape velocity.
However, I disagree that (1) there is barely anything people can do now to slow their aging and (2) there is barely anything that the average person can do to support the research and development of anti-aging therapies. I plan to write a separate post covering these points, but I’ll provide a few thoughts here.
Regarding (1), there are a multitude of actions you can take now to slow your aging and risk of age-related diseases (disclaimer: NOT a substitute for medical advice):
Non-pharmacological:
Exercise—attenuates many hallmarks of aging
Intermittent fasting—improves metabolic switching and cellular stress resistance
Maintain strong social ties—social relationships are a strong predictor of lifespan
Overcome depression, which accelerates biological aging
Optimize your circadian rhythm
Take a biological age test such as myDNAage or InsideTracker and monitor your age over time.
Pharmacological:
On the safer end (for younger people or people with a lower risk tolerance):
Metformin—calorie restriction mimetic that controls blood sugar
Quercetin—anti-aging flavenoid that acts as a senolytic
Resveratrol—sirtuin enzyme activator and calorie restriction mimetic
Vitamin D—blood tested to optimize, ideally 2000IU per day
Vitamin B12 - as many people are deficient
On the more extreme end (for older people or people with a higher risk tolerance):
Rapamycin—an mTOR inhibitor that attenuates senescence
NAD-boosters such as NMN and NR—enhancers of stem cell function
Dasatinib—a senolytic usually used in combination with quercetin
In my cupboard at home, I have a bunch of these pills, as do other people involved in this field who are involved in this research. If you watch interviews from Harvard aging researcher David Sinclair, you will see he takes these supplements, as do many of his millions of followers. These are probably a good starting point given Sinclair is one of the most knowledgeable and researchers in the field.
Ultimately, much or all of the above strategies will be superseded by superior anti-aging technologies in the future (gene therapies, nanotechnologies etc.) but they are a good starting point for increasing longevity and bringing more awareness to the field.
A nice article about a 32-year old biohacker who spent $200k on biohacking his health based on the research is here.
Regarding (2), there are many ways to contribute to the field:
Become a Lifespan.io hero (subscriber)
Donate to SENS Research Foundation
Learn more about the field and discuss it with others, to increase public awareness of the field to help increase:
Government expenditure in geroscience research, which is a crucial bottleneck
Larger private donations to organizations like SENS
Financing of longevity biotech startups
The above are important actions since funding into the basic geroscience research is a key rate-limiting step in progressing the field. There is a fair amount of money to finance the longevity biotech companies, but funding for geroscience is pitifully small—less than 0.2% ($100 million) of the NIH’s $45 billion budget, even though the NIA for example, has a budget of around $3 billion. Moreover, organisations such as SENS finance some of the best research in the field have even smaller budgets ($5-10 million) which is why private small donations can still have a significant impact.
The personal strategies for slowing aging are interesting, but I was under the impression that your post’s primary thesis was that we should give money to, work for, and volunteer for anti-aging organizations. It’s difficult to see how doing any of that would personally make me live longer, unless we’re assuming unrealistic marginal returns to more effort.
In other words, it’s unclear why you’re comparing anti-aging and cryonics in the way you described. In the case of cryonics, people are looking for a selfish return. In the case of funding anti-aging, people are looking for an altruistic return. A more apt comparison would be about prioritizing cryonics vs. personal anti-aging strategies, but your main post didn’t discuss personal anti-aging strategies.
Both are important. Anti-aging is unique in the following way: since all of us are slowly dying of aging, it’s in our best interest to want the field progress for selfish reasons, but also our altruistic interest for society to solve aging as soon as possible, as this saves millions or billions of human life years.
On a personal level, maximising the probability of reaching longevity escape velocity is a min/max problem with two important variables:
(1) maximising personal lifespan, by adopting personal longevity strategies
(2) minimising the time until society reaches longevity escape velocity by helping to progress the longevity field.
You can think of it as a ‘race against time’ - to live forever (or at least, a very long time) one has to live in the subset of worlds which represents the intersection of society achieving longevity escape velocity, and one living long enough to make the cut, to avoid being among the last generations to die.
Personal longevity strategies are important, since a few years of additional life from longevity strategies could be the difference as to whether one makes it to reach longevity escape velocity or not. I suspect that many baby boomers may, unfortunately, miss the cut, but many Millenials and Gen Z’s could make it, particularly if they are proactive with longevity strategies.
Progressing the field is also important, as living to 150 with personal longevity strategies doesn’t mean much if you fall 5 years short of reaching LEV because timelines were too long, for example.
Now, as to which is more important—personal longevity strategies or progressing the field—it’s unclear. Aubrey de Grey in his recent interview with me stated that the latter is much more important, since future therapies will vastly improve healthspan more than anything we can do today, and thus bringing these therapies into the world as soon as possible is the main priority for those who wish to make it to longevity escape velocity. This would suggest that money is perhaps better spent on SENS Research Foundation to support anti-aging research rather than purchasing resveratrol or a gym membership.
However, others I’ve spoken to in the field such as Sebastian Brunemeier who has co-founded two longevity biotech companies (Samsara Therapeutics and Cyclone Therapeutics) think that both progressing the field and adopting personal strategies are important. In his recent talk that our society, he alluded to his personal approach to longevity which involves taking anti-aging pills, meditating, exercising and more. I have a PDF of his full anti-aging protocol and it’s fairly sophisticated.
As an aside, approaches (1) and (2) are mutually supportive. The more people who adopt personal longevity strategies, the more attention (and in the long run, funding) the research side gets, since people are engaging with the research to guide their personal approach to longevity. And the more research that occurs, the better informed the population are to guide their personal longevity strategies.
On a population level, maximising the probability that most people alive today similarly requires optimising both (1) people’s personal longevity strategies and (2) the progression of the field. Overall, I’m inclined to think the latter is more important, although the former is important for those who wish to personally make it to longevity escape velocity in their lifetime.
Therefore, although the purpose of the original post was to highlight the need to increase research funding into anti-aging, adopting personal longevity strategies is also potentially important—both individually, and to bring more attention to the field.
If Brunemeier’s PDF’s is something you can share, I’d like to read it.
Here’s some of the important stuff (not medical advice, obviously):
Daily multivitamin
Omega 3 fatty acids (EPA/DHA)
Magnesium citrate
Turmeric (curcumin)
Resveratrol / pterostilbene
Metformin / berberine
Apigenin
Quercetin
NR (nicotinamide riboside)
EGCG (green or white tea)
Ocimum sanctum (Tulsi)
Bacopa monnieri (standardized 20% bacosides)
Gotu Kola (Centella asiatica)
Gingko biloba
B12 – many people are deficient
Vitamin D (get blood tested to optimize, ideally 30 min/day full sun, 2000 IU)
Vitamin C (megadose, 5 g / day +, spread throughout the day)
Piracetam + Choline
Uridine
Acetylcarnitine + N-acetyl cysteine
Glycine
Supergreen/superfruit blend*: “Blender Culture” .
I strongly support anti-aging research. I’m not clear on what your criticism is of cryonics. Perhaps I missed where you explained why you think that cryonics will not work? For example, where in the Drake equation does your probability differ from Steve Harris’s or Mike Perry’s?
Also, you point out the large number of organizations and companies involved in aging research. Surely the fact that there are way fewer in cryonics means that it is has merit from an underfunding perspective?
The estimates of Harris and Perry that cryonics doesn’t work range from 23% to 99.8% - which are potentially quite high (as I phrased it in the OP). Cryonics might work, but there’s a potentially very good chance that it doesn’t.
I agree that cryonics is underfunded even more than aging research. It seems likely that an increase in funding to cryonics could increase the probability that cryonics works, by improving the chance of success of the following variables:
Favorable conditions for suspension
Suspension preserves enough information
Mishap-free storage
Nanotechnology is perfected
Cryonic revival is “cheap enough”
At the very least, it would help to reduce the uncertainty regarding some of the parameters, providing as a clearer picture of the feasibility of cryonics.
However, several of the parameters would be likely to be unaffected by increased funding:
Materialism is correct
Identity encoded in structure
Sufficient social stability
Cryonics is continuously legal
Nanotechnology is physically possible
Cryonic revival is permitted
Ideally, both cryonics and anti-aging would receive more funding.
The intention of my post was not to encourage reductions in funding into cryonics; rather, to increase awareness among LessWrongers readers about anti-aging.
On the contrary, I very much expect that more funding would help with these factors. The success of cryonics is limited by sociopolitical factors, and the more people who have buy-in, the more likely people are to be protected when in long-term cryopreservation.
This is an admirable goal. =)
Yeah, that seems likely. Certainly ‘the social problem’ (which combines several of the parameters) in general will reduce in likelihood the more funding cryonics receives.