In case you're uncertain about contributing to the battle against aging, consider becoming an advocate for longevity by nurturing public discourse! Crafting two thoughtful tweets daily, highlighting the myriad reasons life is worth cherishing and emphasizing our potential to conquer aging, could serve as a catalyst for igniting a larger movement. Moreover, the journey continues...

Current stage of the longevity field @memortalism

Why I decided to deepen my understanding of growth to contribute to defeating aging. In the past, I thought about how to achieve a situation where the overall pie of resources managed by immortality activists would grow. Today's world of immortality is such that money primarily accumulates around either scientific projects or business projects. The source of money is extremely limited and competitive. The source of money from business is currently not available to us, as business solves the task of increasing personal capital. And activism is pure expenditure without return on investment. Activism is important because only it can give impetus to an ethical position so that states can allocate at least some adequate amount of money for fundamental aging research. Activism is politics, it's a conversation about state resources for the sake of people in the state and all of humanity. It's exclusively humanistic good, but very expensive. However, because money for science is very regulated, and business is very dependent on return on investment, activism finds itself without donors in a dry desert of resources. Therefore, the question of finding resources for activism is one of the most important in the field. What to do if we have little money? I really don't like the modern answer of the community. The community, by its behavior, fights for tiny resources, trying to win in the competition of projects. As a result, the total available pie, although distributed relatively efficiently, firstly, does not grow, and secondly, projects whose significance may be extremely significant, but which are not the most effective from the point of view of mathematical expectation of alternatives, lie for decades as dead weight, and everyone dreams about them, but no one can find resources, as they are always outside our purview. And in attempts to come up with new, more effective individual projects that will suppress others, we lose the infrastructure that can emerge from expanding the field of "not the most effective" projects and give each other reinforcement. We are deprived of infrastructural reinforcement, we are deprived of growth reinforcement, and the overall work we do each year as a percentage of the total work is getting smaller, and it's not enough to make a breakthrough due to weak growth in the number of projects. Of course, not everything is so bad, and new people and new money still appear, and people spend their time. But this is very limited in itself, our growth rate is very weak. If we accelerate the growth of the field by 5-10 percent, this will give us a very big difference in results in a few years, and several decades will already change the orders of success. The field of immortality activism is very small relative to everything else in longevity. It's not correct to judge the field by supplement sellers or the capital that flies around, it's not so important how much money Calico has or how much Bezos or Sam Altman gave. What's important is how much money was spent on changing ethics, so that immortality becomes the new norm, and how much money was spent on the political process. Business will find money, there's no need to worry about that. As achievements are made, resources from business will grow. However, money from taxes for what will not bring immediate benefits from fundamental aging science and outside the mainstream of grants will not appear by itself, this can only happen after successes, but then the work of activism will already become secondary, and business and consumption will already be able to take the baton of creating new ethics. At the moment, the tasks that activism faces are purely prosaic, like feeding activists, as they don't make money. This is a small amount of money, but for each person, you need from 500-3000 USD. For us to have many active figures and action infrastructure, they must live somewhere and eat something. People who are busy with business and provide for themselves are not full-time figures in the field and only express a small ethical position, but they themselves can do little. Or they are already doing useful work in longevity projects in business or science. These are people who are not capital that we can strengthen or distribute, as they are already included as much as they can, and pulling them away from their processes does not change the overall pie of action. I wanted to come down from the sky to earth and understand what I can do myself to create and expand the overall pie of activism. Therefore, I came up with a concept that I hope to instill in the ethics of activists and figures in the field of longevity: "Farmers and Warriors". This is the idea of a basic union of specialization of different people in creating resources or in the action of activism. For me, it's nonsense that someone like Brian Johnson became a full-time activist. He was able to earn a billion, there are extremely few people on the planet who are capable of creating money with the same efficiency as he is, however, as an activist with his unthinkable resources, he performs extremely weak action. Aubrey de Grey, without money like Brian's, does much more for a much lower price. A world in which people reasonably fight death should look like Brian Johnson creates money with the same diligence and gives part of it to Aubrey de Grey. To create even more money and give even more to Aubrey de Grey. The same should be done by every person who can earn more than people can earn on average. I'm still a weak capitalist, but I understand how to achieve an income of 15 thousand USD. Therefore, I try to take the position of a farmer, and so far, although it's a small amount of money, I send monthly to Yan Granat so that he can grow as a longevity activist. But my task is not only to help Yan, but also to try to instill this behavior in everyone who knows how to make money. So that we have a collective process where there are some people who fight to increase their profits every year, reinvest part of this profit, send part to activists, and activists will be engaged in expanding and attracting new people as new "Farmers" and "Warriors" of immortality activism. In this way, you can create a culture that will be obliged to grow and increase growth agents. Because the system is open and cumulative, the speed at which such a specialized united culture can grow can be faster than the growth of profit for a particular person, as activists will also attract new entrepreneurs, and the overall pie will expand from 2 processes of profit growth of each of the past entrepreneurs, as well as adding profits of new entrepreneurs and time of activists. This was the main expansion that I can offer to the community. But I had a question about how to achieve results as a "Farmer" that are much more than what can be done in 1 action or even a bunch of small actions. The only chance to achieve phenomenally large successes is to systematically build something that will accelerate the achievement process. Each action should lead to acceleration of future actions and so on until the acceleration reaches its limit values. This is a description of growth and growth rate. Success in money among poor people like me is achieved not on the basis of a large amount of work for minimum wage, but on processes that change the cost of payment to sizes that are many times larger than the initial ones, and their further improvement. Therefore, I focused on what can be done to change the overall growth rate, to create a continuous growth path and how to avoid local maximums. And how to improve acceleration mechanics. I'm trying to realize how to create not growth, but how to create a growth mechanism that accelerates the growth mechanism. That's why I delved into this.

I think that the victory over aging lies in the plane of questions of growth of collective action of victory over aging. That is why I think deeply about the nature of growth and how I can influence our collective growth, in order to get an instrumental hypothesis I need to understand what growth is and how to get it. This reflection is one of hundreds that have been done over these months. Most of the time I just write in the drawer, and if I find good thoughts I try to turn them into a tool for further thought or action. I would rather write about it publicly, since this will expand the properties of these thoughts. What is growth? I think that it is incorrect to call growth the accumulation of only one of the variables. It is true that this is also growth, but this is low-hierarchical growth at the level of the hard-wire system. However, when we rise to a higher hierarchy, we see growth structures that contain different levels of stability and variability of systems. Some levels can collapse, some change, some be static, and something can increase in order to exist or then disappear. Perhaps, it is worth defining low-hierarchical growth as the accumulation of something into a variable. And also high-hierarchical growth - and here everything is complicated. I see that it has the main feature - this is the transformation of capabilities in favor of what was previously impossible to do at the previous level of growth. Then high-hierarchical growth is an improvement of the emergent property of the system, which stretches according to the will of the builder of growth. Growth in its flesh is the accumulation of sets and the transformation of sets into others. It is nothing more than the search for the soil from which the emergent property is assembled. Growth is the development of the life of the system, from the properties of gluons to the properties of society. Emergence is a logical inference based on sets and simple rules that generate new properties. However, as soon as the inference becomes part of the initial rules, the inference changes. Thus, emergence contains an infinite calculation of the change of properties that generate complexity from itself into a new property of itself. Then we begin to perceive growth as a complex chemical reaction. It is worth thinking about chemical reactions. The first thing that comes to mind is control and lack of control. Controlled reactions serve a purpose outside themselves, they are not actors. In reactions such as the combustion of gasoline in an engine, there are goals of the driver - to get where he wants. And uncontrolled reactions serve self-meaning, to be more precise, they have no meaning until they generate meaning. The sun, which burns without purpose, eventually became the beginning, the basic part of a chemical reaction that gave birth to life, and life gave birth to intelligence. In a sense, the meaning that a person gives birth to in their head began with a very basic property outside of a person, from inside the sun and the rest of the cosmos. Our civilization is the creation of the entire visible universe in a sense. The fact that you want to watch YouTube, eat ice cream, or think - these are all fruits of a very complex emergent reaction. In a sense, if matter begins to desire other matter according to new laws of biology and psychology that did not exist in nature before, this is one of the very high points of growth. And if you create even more incredible complexity by your action, being part of a reaction that you do not control as a Netflix consumer, or a reaction that you control, doing something that did not exist before and giving birth to new complexity and instrumental properties - you expand the properties of your mind or the minds of others. In practice, the expansion of the personal occurs purely collectively, therefore, the fact that you were able to do something that no one else could in the entire history of the universe we are aware of, says that this entire universe tried for this. And you became a test tube of this reaction, and this reaction became a new property of our world. But reactions differ from each other, although everything in nature tries to interact with each other in one way or another. And reactions that reduce complexity can be called degradation. However, degradation should not be confused with growth through degradation interaction. As soon as man understood about the atom, he created a nuclear bomb and nuclear energy. Studying the small was an appeal to the foundation that became part of greater complexity. It is worth defining growth as a change that creates new fields of possible complexity for even newer properties that did not exist before and were impossible. Growth is the birth of growth.

Yuval Noah Harari has a new book out, and I haven't even read the previous ones, so I decided to read all his works. And while reading, I thought about this. In the past, hunger and disease were pretty terrible conditions for humanity. Much more terrible than we can imagine now. But even so, it looks like humanity refused to work with that, did not have a clear understanding and desire. Plague and hunger could have been reduced even before the era of antibiotics, vaccines, and fertilizers. But they didn't do this and put up with these troubles for thousands of years. The fact that people put up with aging is rather a normal state of mind in response to the pain of humanity. Just as they used to put up with hunger, wars, or infections. But as we see, this situation is very fluid, an attempt to solve problems sooner or later gives a result. I see that everything starts small, the most difficult point in solving a problem is when this problem becomes actualized and put on the agenda. From some point of view, trying to live to 120 years as in fashionable healthy parties is not trying to die at 120. It is trying to reach that point of being where desire overcomes fear and neglect of the problem. Probably by the time we reach life at 120 years, our collective desires will shift from 120 years to immortality in a very short period. Previously, they hoped that people would be able to eat at least enough to last a day, now the norm of desires is already in the quality and pleasure of daily nutrition and not the fact of survival. Humanity needs courage to stop wanting little, but the desire for big happens through courage that is enough only for little. But this little should not contain only the existing narrative and should not deny the maximum goal. Now we hear that immortality and eternal youth are not what people want, but everyone wants a healthy life. Even those people who want 120 years of life often do not want more. But perhaps we need to build a bridge from a short quality life to bypass a long and limited life and pave the way for people's desires towards a long and quality life with the declared potential to reach an unlimited healthy life. The path of desires. For example, in the space industry, desires are built in a chain and do not contradict each other. People who want to fly to Mars also declare a desire to fly to other solar systems, but in practice they are engaged in local successes that are far from even Mars. But in longevity, everything is different. Conservative people deliberately refuse big desires, wanting little. Or radicals refuse small, wanting big. As a result, we have groups of people who conflict with each other for the right narrative, and do not strengthen people's desires for all positions. Desire must be higher than fear. Fear of death and aging before victory on it is not controllable and static. Unless we all suddenly start aging significantly faster. But we can change another variable. And any action that reduces or scolds the desire for more life in another is destructive. Perhaps we should think about whether we can create a resonance of our desires, which will be localized at all levels without causing harm to others.