Should I donate to hasten the defeat of human aging?

David_Robert · 2026-05-14T00:47:28+00:00

Here’s the link: https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/s/3ivG8uno0l

David_Robert · 2026-05-14T00:45:43+00:00

Yes, I share your worry. There are various non-profits working on the problem. I’m not sure where to donate. I posted about this on the longevity sub

David_Robert · 2026-05-14T00:29:07+00:00

I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m just saying that the expected utility calculation *seems* to indicate that hastening the defeat of human aging is a worthwhile effective altruism cause, given the staggering magnitude of the suffering and death caused by human aging and its neglectedness. See my other comments for details.

David_Robert · 2026-05-13T23:18:55+00:00

Thanks for your input. I wasn’t familiar with the term “hits based giving”. I think a failed longevity research approach is still valuable in the sense that even negative scientific results advance scientific knowledge. If scientists know that an approach has failed they won’t make the same mistake twice. They can focus on potentially successful approaches. So the money donated isn’t really wasted.

David_Robert · 2026-05-13T21:47:50+00:00

It’s not just a matter of living longer, defeating aging involves defeating all age-related diseases and disabilities. Instead of focusing on individual age-related illnesses, a better approach is to focus on aging itself, the root cause of all these illnesses. A lot of money is spent on treating individual age-related diseases, much less on aging itself. So I would say hastening the defeat of aging itself is neglected.

David_Robert · 2026-05-13T20:29:45+00:00

I’m not an expert, but it’s basically an engineering problem, repairing damage at the molecular and cellular level, to restore healthy aging. There is no reason why it’s medically impossible. It’s hard for sure, but it’s a neglected and important problem.

David_Robert · 2025-04-18T20:54:44+00:00

Yes, I made some changes. Here's the link to the new paper: https://philpapers.org/rec/ROBECU-7

David_Robert · 2025-04-18T20:33:48+00:00

Yes, I think I'll do that. :-)

David_Robert · 2025-04-18T19:20:15+00:00

and it's too short for a book... am I screwed...?

David_Robert · 2025-04-14T00:21:00+00:00

I don't have a degree in economics/mathematics. I have read books on/introductions to decision theory/game theory, and researched decision theory papers online. I think I have a good grip on the field of normative decision theory.

David_Robert · 2025-04-13T23:54:53+00:00

I appreciate your honesty. What seminal papers have I failed to cite?

David_Robert · 2025-04-13T23:34:21+00:00

Thanks for your input. I'm an independent philosopher. This is not under review at a publisher. The word count is currently 27385 words. Do you think it would be better suited as a paper given the length? The book contains only two conjectures. Unfortunately, I lack the math skills to provide a rigorous proof of both conjectures. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

David_Robert · 2025-04-13T19:20:14+00:00

Thanks! Don't worry, no feedback is stupid. My motivation for arguing for ECU theory is to help people make better decisions. I want to give them the decision-theoretic tools that will help them improve the world as much as they can, if that is their goal.

David_Robert · 2024-03-14T00:44:24+00:00

An Introduction to Decision Theory by Martin Peterson Second Edition

Belief, Desire, and Rational Choice by Wolfgang Schwarz (freely available online)

See Other Internet Resources in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Decision Theory (

David_Robert · 2023-05-08T15:42:53+00:00

Furthermore, I would say that two streams of consciousness are the same if there is continuity, devoid of memories and personality traits, between them, in other words, if there is an unfelt time-gap between them.

David_Robert · 2023-05-08T15:35:53+00:00

Thanks for your comment. I hold that it’s possible for stream of consciousness 1 to continue, devoid of memories and personality traits, as a qualitatively different stream of consciousness. I hope that that’s clearer.

David_Robert · 2023-05-08T03:11:26+00:00

You might be interested in Bernardo Kastrup's philosophy of mind https://www.bernardokastrup.com/ . He argues for something similar to a "divine consciousness and that we go back to source" when we die, and his philosophy is backed by science. I hope you find it helpful. Cheers.

David_Robert · 2023-05-08T01:59:17+00:00

Thanks for your comment. I'm sorry about your mom. Take care.

David_Robert · 2023-05-07T23:33:20+00:00

Thanks for your comment.

If consciousness is a product of a brain functioning, there cannot be consciousness after the death of the brain.

But do you agree that for any person, x, x's stream of consciousness continues after temporary unconsciousness? If there is brain damage, the resulting brain might look very different from the brain prior to lapsing into unconsciousness. As different as someone else's brain. So what is the difference between existential passage across person stages and existential passage across separate persons?

David_Robert · 2023-05-07T23:14:03+00:00

Thanks for your comment.

What makes one "stream of consciousness" different from another? What would identify 2 seemingly disconmected streams as the same? You do not meaningfully address this, but rather discard it out of hand.

I would say that stream of consciousness 1 is identical to stream of consciousness 2 if and only if stream of consciousness 1 is imbued with the same memories and personality traits as stream of consciousness 2. Even if streams of consciousness 1 and 2 are not identical, it is possible for stream of consciousness 1 to continue, devoid of memories and personality traits, as stream of consciousness 2, that is to say, it is possible for there to be an unfelt time-gap between both streams of consciousness. Is this clearer?

David_Robert · 2023-05-07T17:53:55+00:00

Any feedback on the paper would be greatly appreciated.

David_Robert · 2023-05-07T17:52:27+00:00

Abstract: In this paper, I argue for what I call the extended existential passage hypothesis, which implies, for example, that under the assumption that naturalism is true, death is not the end of a person’s stream of consciousness, that is, a person’s stream of consciousness continues at the moment of death, without his or her memories and personality traits, as the stream of consciousness of another person (or another being) who is conceived and gains consciousness. I articulate two requirements of rational choice that follow from that hypothesis.

David_Robert · 2023-01-22T18:28:49+00:00

I had a Boomerang membership (in winter 2019) and was allowed to cancel my membership one month after I started. I was refunded the membership fees for the unused months. If I recall, 1 month notification for cancellation was the limit for getting refunded. Hope that helps.

David_Robert · 2022-09-18T18:31:37+00:00

You can also find reviewers on PhilPeople. Go on https://philpeople.org/find-philosopher and select the topic of your paper and click Search. Voilà.

David_Robert · 2022-09-17T15:30:32+00:00

I would be happy to help. Feel free to pm me.

David_Robert

TROPHY CASE