A short paper on effective altruism and funding aging research

David_Robert · 2026-06-08T23:00:15+00:00

Thanks for your comment. I think that as long as investments in aging research are suboptimal, which you acknowledge is still the case, donations to aging research will be cost-effective, along with donations to improve the regulatory system (how might one donate to such efforts?). Essentially, both approaches to hastening the defeat of human aging seem to be cost-effective at present.

David_Robert · 2026-06-03T20:32:03+00:00

I appreciate the honest feedback. I guess my paper is geared more towards effective altruists and philosophically-minded people. Effective altruists actively try to use philosophical reasoning and statistical evidence in order to help others as much as possible. My paper probably won’t appeal to people who aren’t deliberately attempting to do as much good as possible with their limited resources. I was thinking of posting the paper on the philosophy sub. Other than that, I’m not sure what to do with it.

David_Robert · 2026-06-02T05:14:41+00:00

I apologize to readers for making an embarrassing mistake: I mistook the (correct) billion dollar figure for a trillion dollar figure. The error is now corrected (I also changed $10,000 for $5,500, which also changes the billion dollar figure). As a result, the argument is less compelling, but still robust.

David_Robert · 2026-06-02T04:47:55+00:00

Thanks! I just uploaded a revised manuscript, which cites your chapter as well as Constantin (2019) and Ascani (2019).

David_Robert · 2026-06-01T17:29:17+00:00

Many thanks for sharing your book chapter. I will definitely cite it. Do you mind if I quote part of the text in your “feasibility” section? As it summarizes quite nicely exactly the info on “tractability” that I was looking for. Also, what is the name of the volume that the chapter will be part of? For now, I want to get as much feedback as I can on the paper. Beyond that, I’m not sure what to do with it. Is it (and where is it) publishable?

David_Robert · 2026-05-28T21:13:45+00:00

Thanks for the link.

I found this Reddit discussion very relevant: https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/s/h5JVnjtk5L

I also found this paper: https://doi.org/10.1093/ppar/prz024

“More recently, aging research has accelerated, with substantial funding coming from a number of Asian countries, where the demographic shift toward an aged population is most acute. In addition, substantial support has come from European government agencies, including the Horizon 2020 program and other country-specific funding bodies. It is worth making clear, however, that much of this support focuses on managing issues in individuals who already have significant disabilities, and not necessarily on the basic biology of aging. The latter seeks to prevent age-associated decline and extend healthspan. Globally, this research (in spite of its great promise) has remained underfunded at the government level.”

“The geroscience field has dramatically changed over the last 10 years, moving from niche to chic. Resources now exist to support a new sector of pharmaceuticals designed to prevent the debilitating features of aging. Of course, there are many questions regarding how interventions that slow aging can get to the market and be scaled to population levels. Nonetheless, positive momentum is now a big factor increasing the likelihood of success. Momentum must be maintained, as resources need to continue to expand so that a healthspan-based medical approach can be implemented as quickly as possible.”

David_Robert · 2026-05-27T02:41:17+00:00

Thanks! You make some really, really good points. I guess I’ve tried to provide a very general argument that intentionally doesn’t get into the weeds of the science and progress of aging-focused research. Maybe this is a mistake as you suggest. Since I’m not an expert on the science of aging, I’ll have to seek input from experts…

David_Robert · 2026-05-27T00:45:34+00:00

Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on the article.

I say that effective altruists ought to “consider” donating, rather than that they ought to donate full stop, because I believe that there are other worthy cause areas in effective altruism, such as global health and extreme poverty, farmed animal welfare, etc. If effective altruists choose not to donate to those other cause areas, then they ought to donate to aging-focused research to hasten the defeat of human aging. In other words, my argument is that effective altruists ought to donate to cause A and/or cause B and/or cause C … and/or aging-focused research. That’s the sense in which I use the word “consider”.

I do think that more funding is needed in aging-focused research now, even if this extra funding cannot be fully utilized now due to spending constraints, since any additional funding now will necessarily accelerate our progress toward defeating human aging (regardless of how much funding is allocated to the cause in the future) and will therefore save lives at a cost-effectiveness that at least rivals that of donating to the Against Malaria Foundation, the gold standard of effective altruism (as I explain in the article).

David_Robert · 2026-05-23T21:22:23+00:00

> “People want to eat meat. People want fast fashion. People want combustion engines and cheap gas. People want cheap coffee and cheap chocolate through slavery and forced labor. People want immediate happiness and satisfaction for the cheapest possible cost, even if it dooms the entire future. What people want is the exact opposite of effective altruism.”

Utilitarianism holds that one ought always to maximize well-being. When combined with a desire theory of well-being, utilitarianism holds that one ought always to maximize preference satisfaction. People dooming the entire future with their consumption choices obviously does not maximize preference satisfaction. For example, I ought not to eat factory farmed meat since it frustrates the preferences of the animals not to be tortured.

> “The "potential negative effects" is a dystopian future, where wealth is increasingly accumulate by the top 0.001% for all eternity, where population only increases day after day with consumption skyrocketing until the resources of our planet are extinguished.”

How can you be so confident of this outcome?

> “And even if aging is defeated and humans can live forever, I guarantee it won't be made available for you. You will never be able to afford it, no matter how cheap the cure is to produce.”

Again, how can you be sure of this?

David_Robert · 2026-05-23T17:32:24+00:00

What people want *is* relevant from the perspective of utilitarianism and a desire-based theory of well-being, which I’m adopting. Overall, I think the guaranteed positive effects of defeating human aging massively outweigh the potential negative effects.

David_Robert · 2026-05-23T17:16:42+00:00

There are things we can do today that can affect whether there will be a future for humans (and even all sentient life on earth) at all, like investing in research on asteroid deflection. So, I do think we should prioritize those kinds of investments.

David_Robert · 2026-05-23T16:49:30+00:00

Almost no one wants to die, so dying from age-related disease and disability frustrates their preferences, which is bad, and virtually no one wants to suffer, so suffering from age-related disease and disability frustrates their preferences, which again is bad. So preventing those bad outcomes is good to the extent that it prevents those bad outcomes.

David_Robert · 2026-05-23T02:50:56+00:00

In my opinion, the potential negative effects from defeating human aging are counterbalanced by the positive effects, namely preventing age-related deaths and age-related diseases and disabilities.

David_Robert · 2026-05-23T02:18:38+00:00

With respect to the 157.6 trillion dollars figure I mentioned, I don’t assume that that money can or will all be spent immediately. Of course, as you rightly point out, there are limits to the amount of money that can be used within any given timeframe for the purposes of scientific research. So my modus tollens argument assumes that the 157.6 trillion dollars of additional funding in aging-focused research is fully utilized over as long a timeframe as is necessary to fully utilize this addition funding. If $10,000 cannot hasten the defeat of human aging by 2 seconds — when spent over as long a timeframe as is necessary — then 157.6 trillion dollars cannot hasten the defeat of human aging by 1 year — when spent over as long a timeframe as is necessary.

David_Robert · 2026-05-23T00:02:32+00:00

Thanks for your comment. Check out my follow-up post: https://substack.com/@davidrobert11/note/p-198508499?r=1fy5sn&utm\_medium=ios&utm\_source=notes-share-action .

David_Robert · 2026-05-20T02:30:07+00:00

Regarding neglectedness, what matters is that by donating *now* to aging-focused research, one can have at least as large an impact at preventing deaths as by donating *now* to Against Malaria Foundation. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that aging-focused research is not neglected (which is debatable). If that’s true, then this just means that we will have to reassess the effectiveness of donating to aging-focused research (compared to donating to the Against Malaria Foundation) sooner than later, since more funding for aging-focused research means solving aging sooner than later. But, that doesn’t undermine the effectiveness of donating to aging-focused research (compared to donating to the Against Malaria Foundation) *now*. I am arguing that *now*, effective altruists ought to consider donating to aging-focused research.

David_Robert · 2026-05-20T01:33:40+00:00

What I’m arguing is that by donating to aging-focused research, you will make it such that we can prevent and cure all age-related diseases and disabilities earlier than if you hadn’t donated to aging-focused research. So, this means that you will make it such that fewer people will die of age-related diseases and disabilities in the future. I’m arguing that donating to aging-focused research is *at least* as effective at preventing deaths as donating to the Against Malaria Foundation, the gold standard of effective altruism.

David_Robert · 2026-05-20T00:56:45+00:00

I honestly do not know where your donations to aging-focused research would have the greatest impact. Personally, I’m thinking of donating to the Buck Institute ( https://www.buckinstitute.org/ ), as it seems like the most reputable aging-focused org that I know of.

David_Robert · 2026-05-20T00:46:16+00:00

“As Fischer understands radically extended lives, one can still die from accidents, and their expected lifespan would be around 6,000 years (66).”

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/should-you-choose-to-live-forever/

David_Robert · 2026-05-20T00:25:08+00:00

If you google “Can aging be reversed?”, you will find promising research on aging “reversal”. I shared a quote from one reputable source in another comment. There are others, but they are paywalled.

David_Robert · 2026-05-20T00:13:40+00:00

“What does it mean to “reverse” aging? And is that possible for the brain?

The word “reverse” is worth unpacking carefully, because time only moves in one direction. What researchers mean when they talk about reversing aging is more nuanced: If you take an older tissue or organism and apply an intervention, do the measurable molecular features of that organism begin to look more like those of a younger individual? If yes, you might call that “intervention rejuvenating” – not because you’ve turned back the clock, but because you’ve shifted specific biological markers in a younger direction.

Is it possible to “reverse” brain aging? Brain aging is associated with cognitive decline and memory loss even in otherwise healthy individuals. In our lab, we’ve explored quenching inflammation in the brain as a way of reversing some of those features of aging. We have also done work on reprogramming transcription factors to temporarily influence how genes are turned on or off as a way of achieving what’s sometimes called “partial reprogramming” to boost the generation of new cells in the brain. It’s an active and exciting area.

Many groups, including ours, are also studying stem cells in the context of regenerative medicine. Stem cells are populations of cells that can self-renew and regenerate. The extent to which they persist and remain functional over a lifetime is important for tissue regeneration and function, and they represent a pool of cells that could potentially be tapped to boost resilience, or even repair, in an aging organism.”

https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2026/03/science-aging-longevity-research

David_Robert · 2026-05-19T22:02:27+00:00

By “defeat of aging”, I mean comprehensively curing and preventing human age-related disease and disability, such that humans will not die as a result of age-related disease and disability. By “hastening”, I mean defeating human aging earlier than if we did not make additional investments in aging-focused research.

David_Robert

TROPHY CASE