You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Elo comments on Instrumental Rationality Questions Thread - Less Wrong Discussion

14 Post author: AspiringRationalist 22 August 2015 08:25PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (92)
Tags: instrumental_questions questions instrumental

Comments (92)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: D_Malik 23 August 2015 02:57:55AM 9 points [-]
  • Getting an air filter can gain you ~0.6 years of lifespan, plus some healthspan. Here's /u/Louie's post where I saw this.
  • Lose weight. Try Shangri-La, and if that doesn't work consider the EC stack or a ketogenic diet.
  • Seconding James_Miller's recommendation of vegetables, especially cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, bok choy, cauliflower, collard greens, arugula...) Just eat entire plates of the stuff often.
  • Write a script that takes a screenshot and webcam picture every 30 seconds. Save the files to an external hard drive. After a few decades, bury the external, along with some of your DNA and possibly brain scans, somewhere it'll stay safe for a couple hundred years or longer. This is a pretty long shot, but there's a chance that a future FAI will find your horcrux and use it to resurrect you. I think this is a better deal than cryonics since it costs so much less.
Comment author: Fluttershy 23 August 2015 08:06:05AM 5 points [-]

Interesting; I hadn't thought about air filters at all. Thanks for mentioning them! Five minutes of googling around leaves me highly skeptical the air filter mentioned in Louie's post, which you linked to, is the one anyone interested in life extension would want to buy, though; the air filter mentioned there is a "HEPA grade" filter, not a "HEPA" filter. The filter in question only claims that it can catch particles which are larger than 30 angstroms, while real HEPA filters catch at least 99.97 % of particles larger than 3 angstroms. As a quick check, this seems like it might matter since I'd expect HEPA filters to catch all of the six air contaminants the EPA mentions here, while a filter which only caught particles larger than 30 angstroms would only stand a chance of catching one of those six contaminants. Please pardon the back-of-the-envelope nature of this comment.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit