The will to live, our conatus, is arguably our most basic instinct. Unless affected by a mental illness, most of us would sacrifice everything to save our life, or the lives of our loved ones. Yet, we all know that we are going to die. Not only will we all die, but most likely following a period of decline fitting of our worse nightmares.
Since constantly dwelling on this tragic faith would be too painful, we have developed defense mechanisms. Some believe in religion which gives death meaning and the promise of an after-life. Others find comfort in their legacy or offspring, through which they may figuratively continue to live. Many simply block it from their mind. These are all modes of acceptance or denial. Why not after all? If death is certain, any other attitude would be delusion.
Let's examine the situation probabilistically. While it is true that everyone before us died, does the past guarantee the future? While the odds are against us, I argue that technological progress gives us a glimmer of hope. New technologies build on top of existing ones, this creates an exponential effect. This means that we can not linearly predict when a cure for aging will exist based on the historical development pace of cures. It follows that there is a non-zero chance that some of us might never take a dirt nap. Rather, our body might be frozen until the technology is ready. Our consciousness might get uploaded into a computer. Or, we might undergo a series a therapies which will rejuvenate us faster than we naturally age.
If this deduction is valid, why does it matter? After all, we are still looking at negligible odds of success. Since a non-zero probability means that our fate is not sealed, it is now possible to avoid acceptance or denial without being delusional. Like Freud suggests that we deal with our sexual impulses, perhaps we can sublimate our fear of death. We can face it and fight. If everyone had this attitude, the world would be more united. Most of our battles are fought over imaginary or relatively unimportant problems. If we are all fighting the same battle, we have everything to gain by collaborating. We would also have a stronger imperative to control other causes of death such as violence and pollution.
Here is how I'm playing my odds:
- Don't be reckless, this should narrow down the most likely enemies to deceases of old age
- Strategize on diet, exercise, sleep patterns and stress mgmt against these particular enemies: cardiovascular deceases, cerebrovascular deceases, cancer and neurodegerative deceases.
- Actively monitor the body to detect problems early. This ranges from a daily weigh-in to frequent lab panels.
- Consider drugs and supplements with an asymmetric payout. I will write another article covering my current stack.
- Consider maintenance therapies as soon as they become available.
- Maintain good dental hygiene, muscle tone, posture and skin.
- Maintain strong intellectual fortitude. The human condition is depressing in many ways. Without some sort of anchor, one may not consistently arrive to the conclusion that fighting death is worthwhile and dominos will begin to fall.
- Long-term financial planning. These therapies will be expansive for the early adopters. However, time is literally money given that compound interest is also exponential.
I do have specific action plans tied to each of these fives categories. However, I expect the specifics to vary depending on individual circumstance and state of scientific research. These actions plans are composed of routines which require discipline. That said, I make a point not to practice them the detriment of other more down-to-earth pursuits -- such as overall happiness and relationships. I came to the conclusion that these routines offer enough positive effects to counter the small sacrifices which they involve. Even in the likely event that I die from old-age, a marginal increase in lifespan and/or enhanced quality of life in my senior years might still be worth the fight.