I think it might be better to remove the other effects. If you could pick between having fun and remembering having fun, all else being equal, which would you choose?

In general I don't consider going to a meditation retreat a dietary strategy, even when it increases your will power because you are more present afterwards.

It seems like whole genome sequencing could be a lower-cost, lower-quality option? (No recurring freezing costs, just a lump sum for the sequencing? But it's less likely to be useful.)

Also, it's not clear to me that it's important than an artificial organ be produced from my cells.

Is this an idea you had yourself? Did you run it by any experts? In any case, this suggests to me that you are generalizing hastily about what you see as this implying about people.

I have come to think as willpower depletion as: "RAM is full. To start new processes that take up cognitive resources, please terminate some of those which are running at the moment before new threads can be started."

It well explains why some people experience willpower depletion and other don't. Those that experience don't release the mental resources but their brain continues analysing the situation to learn from it.

If so, I would be interested in whether this affect has been incorporated into any dieting strategies.

How would you do that? Don't memorize long numbers right before choosing what to eat, doesn't seem very practical advice.

It's encourages grocery lists instead of keeping that information in your head, but that's best practice anyway for commitment reasons if you want to focus on buying healthy food.

The explanation of this I'd go to first is a system 1 / system 2 explanation (e.g. your intuitive system [system 1] picks the tastier thing, and overriding that requires activity from deliberative decision-making (system 2) that can be tied up with cognitive load), so I'd recommend looking in Thinking Fast and Slow, which I think mentions at least one Kahneman and Tversky experiment on a similar subject.

How about this:

-6. I buy my clothes from thrift stores (which explains why they don't quite fit, and aren't "in fashion") because I'm more concerned with social/environmental/economic responsibility than I am fashion.

See "folk economics" and Bryan Caplan's research for evidence of zero-sum bias. And Robert Wright's Non-Zero for a discussion of how human progress has come from increasingly positive-sum interactions.

This post feels a bit lacking as it just briefly introduces a bias and explains why it is there, but doesn't talk about how to overcome it or the harm that it does. Zero-sum bias results in tons of bad laws, for example. And it can be self-perpetuating - very high marginal tax rates are often justified by assuming the earner just got lucky or took from someone else. If those in the highest tax brackets are the most productive, then the disincentive caused by such punitive taxes is causing the most productive to work less - a huge cost.