Bryan Johnson and the “Don’t Die” Movement

Have you heard of Bryan Johnson?

The man who spends $2M/yr optimizing his health and tracking all of his biometrics to reverse his rate of aging?

The man who has swapped blood plasma with his father/son in pursuit of the fountain of youth?

In the realm of modern science and technology, few figures stir as much intrigue and controversy as Bryan Johnson.

While there has been no shortage of media coverage portraying Johnson to be an elitist freakshow, I was struck by the Bryan Johnson interview on the Rich Roll podcast.

Rich Roll, an excellent interviewer, humanized Johnson’s anti-aging pursuit and shed light on some of the deeper, philosophical underpinnings of Johnson’s “Don’t Die” movement.

Why Johnson Is Working to Extend Lifespans:

As a species, Johnson believes that extending lifespans is not only possible but a) inevitable and b) in alignment with the needs of humanity/planet now and in the future.

As modern humans with the same primitive neural software as our earliest ancestors, we’re pretty awful at making decisions that are in our species’ best interest.

In the same way that we’ve outsourced driving directions to technology (think: Waze, Google Maps), Johnson argues that same outsourcing will (inevitably) apply to our health.

A Case in Support of the “Don’t Die” Movement

Innovation in Health and Aging:
Bryan Johnson’s project is pioneering in the field of healthspan extension. His experimentation is contributing to the development of new methods and technologies that could potentially benefit everyone.

Preventative Healthcare Model:
Johnson’s approach promotes a shift from a reactive to a proactive healthcare model. By focusing on preventing aging and optimizing health, society could potentially reduce the burden of chronic diseases, lower healthcare costs, and improve the quality of life for aging populations.

Inspiration and Community Engagement:
Johnson’s open approach to his health regimen inspires others and encourages community engagement. His project fosters a supportive community where individuals are motivated to take charge of their health, share insights, and help each other improve.

Ethical AI Integration:

By aligning AI developments with humanistic goals, Johnson’s project could guide the ethical integration of AI in society.

A Case Against the “Don’t Die” Movement

Feasibility and Accessibility:
The highly personalized and resource-intensive nature of Johnson’s regimen is impractical for most, potentially exacerbating health inequalities instead of alleviating them.

Biological and Ethical Concerns:
Extending lifespan significantly could have unforeseen biological and social consequences, including overpopulation and resource depletion. Ethically, it also raises questions about the natural course of life and death.

Cultural and Psychological Impact:
The intense focus on avoiding death might lead to an unhealthy obsession with aging and mortality.

Dependency on Technology:
Relying heavily on AI and other technologies for health management risks creating dependencies that could be exploited commercially or otherwise. It also raises issues about privacy.

Philosophical and Existential Risks:
The pursuit of immortality or extreme longevity might distract from addressing other urgent human and societal issues.

Unorthodox Thinkers Ahead of Their Time

In response to those that criticize his methods and approach, Johnson has said that he cares less about the judgment from his contemporaries than he does about those living 500 years from now.

In the same way we 21st century humans look at the 16th century and compress it down into a few big milestones and breakthroughs, Johnson challenges us to think from the perspective of someone in the 26th century.

As a 26th-century person looking back at the 21st-century on the eve of superintelligence, what was the single breakthrough that helped make intelligent existence thrive?

Bryan Johnson believes (or hopes) that the answer is that humans were able to unite on their one common foe: death.

By deploying a superintelligence that is aligned to the thriving of intelligent existence, we have a fighting chance at improving and preserving:

  • the planet
  • peace
  • human life

Ambitious? Naive? Realistic?

Time will tell.

In the meantime, it’s worth reminding ourselves to stay humble about the possibilities.

Many individuals that we now recognize as groundbreaking thinkers were criticized while alive.

Some examples:

  • Galileo Galilei: After positing that the Earth orbits the sun, Galileo was placed under house arrest.
  •  Charles Darwin: His initial theories of evolution by natural selection were met with outrage and disbelief.
  • Ingaz Semmelweis: Was mocked and resisted by the medical community for promoting handwashing in medical clinics.
  • Alfred Wegener: Was ridiculed during his lifetime for his theory of continental drift, later validated by the discovery of plate tectonics.

Final Thoughts:

Would you outsource decisions regarding your sleep, nutrition, and physical activity patterns to an algorithm?

What if that algorithm was proven to improve your health – mentally, physically, and emotionally?

The possibility to do exactly that, while currently bordering sci-fi, may be closer than we realize.

IMAGE: Used with permission from Wkimedia Commons.

Eight Timeless Insights from Daniel Kahneman

As financial planners, we work with our clients to make the most of their finances, aligning their money to be in integrity with their diverse wants, needs, ambitions, fears, and behaviors.

When it comes to truly understanding our clients, behavioral psychologist and Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman has made an indelible impact on our field.

Kahneman passed away on March 27th at the age of 90.

In a remembrance of Kahneman and his impact, we’ve compiled nine of his timeless insights that will continue guiding us through the complex psychological terrain of financial decision-making.

1. Loss Aversion: Kahneman revealed that we feel the pain of loss more intensely than the pleasure of profit.  

This is why we spend the time making sure clients are properly insured and invested in alignment with their risk tolerance.

2. Overconfidence Bias: It’s not uncommon to have a client who has picked some individual stocks that turned out to be winners. 

However, recognizing how statistically difficult this is to do with any degree of consistency, we coach clients to rely on empirical evidence > overconfidence.

For those that want to keep trading, we designate a % of their invested assets as “fun money.” This allows them to engage in stock selection without losing the farm.

As planners, our overconfidence bias is that a low-fee, globally diversified approach will beat out individual stock-picking 99.5% of the time. We believe alpha (i.e. outperformance) is best achieved via long-term planning + patience > gut feelings + speculative moves.

3. Anchoring Effect: This cognitive bias describes our tendency to give disproportionate weight to the first piece of information we receive when making decisions.

Consider a scenario in salary negotiations:

A hiring manager shares that the salary for a position is $250,000.

This number sets an anchor in the mind of the interviewee.

When an offer of $260,000 follows, it appears attractive because it surpasses the initial anchor of $250,000.

However, imagine if the interviewee had not been influenced by this anchor and they discovered similar roles in the same industry paying $300,000.

The $260,000 might be viewed differently.

The anchoring effect goes beyond just salary negotiations. It affects how we perceive the value in everything from real estate, to automobiles, to investment opportunities and beyond.

4. Planning Fallacy: This is when individuals underestimate the time, costs, and risks involved in a project while simultaneously overestimating the benefits.

Thinking of investing in that timeshare that promises endless family vacations?

Convinced that your brother-in-law’s mobile back waxing startup will be the next big thing?

About to back that friend’s idea of starting a chain of left-handed stores?

In each of these examples, emotions can cloud our better judgement, leaving us to overestimating the upside while ignoring the real costs and risks.

As planners, we try to help clients zoom out of the present moment and view circumstances + opportunities from 30,000ft.

Similarly, when it comes to tax + retirement projections – we err on the side of being conservative.

We’d rather a slight overestimation of your taxes and an underestimation of your investment returns to help:

  • build buffers for the unexpected
  • prepare for a wider range of outcomes
  • avoid disappointment

5. Endowment Effect: This bias causes individuals to overvalue assets simply because they own them, potentially leading to poor financial decisions. 

However, it also applies to areas of life beyond the portfolio:

  • Real Estate: Homeowners may overestimate the value of their home because of their emotional attachment, leading to unrealistic listing prices or reluctance to accept fair market offers.
  • Personal Items: People often demand a higher price than buyers are willing to pay for used personal items like cars, furniture, or electronics, simply because they own them and have personal histories with them.
  • Business Decisions: Business owners might overvalue their own company or business ideas, making it difficult to make objective decisions about selling, investing further, or changing business strategies.
  • Career Choices: Employees might overvalue their current job position or role due to familiarity and comfort, leading them to pass up new opportunities that could offer better growth potential.

6. Availability Heuristic: This is the tendency to overvalue information that comes to mind easily, examples can include:

  • recent market fluctuations
  • personal experiences with investing/real estate
  • media coverage of the economy
  • a friend’s investment success

Relying on these examples can skew planning decisions, often for the worse.

As planners, we navigate this heuristic by seeking and sharing diversified sources of news, information, and data.

7. Sunk Cost Fallacy: This is the classic case of when an individual doesn’t know when to cut their losses. 

Clients may be inclined to continue investing in a failing investment/business simply because they’ve already invested considerable resources.

Educating clients about this fallacy and encouraging them to consider current and future costs + benefits, rather than past investments, can guide them towards more rational decision-making.

8. Halo Effect: This bias occurs when overall impressions of a person or company influence specific judgments. 

In investing, it may cause clients to overvalue stocks based on admiration for a CEO (hello, Tesla!) or strong brand reputation (hi, Apple!), leading to overlooked risks.

To mitigate this, we work with clients to ensure that their “fun money” investment decisions don’t derail the broader, long-term investment plan.

IMAGE: Photo of Daniel Kahneman used with permission from Wikimedia Commons. This work by NRKbeta.no is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Norway License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://nrkbeta.no/cc/

The Stock Market is NOT a Casino, it’s a Racetrack

By Dennis McNamara:

The stock market is not the casino, it’s the horses on the racetrack.

I’ve always balked at the analogy of comparing the stock market to the casino but it wasn’t until picking up Poor Charlie’s Almanac: The Essential Wit and Wisdom of Charlie Munger (RIP Charlie) that I heard about this more appropriate comparison.

The stock market is not a casino with randomly assigned odds.

Rather, it’s a pari-mutuel system.

A pari-what???

Pari-mutuel betting systems are used at racetracks.

They are a type of betting where everyone’s bets go into a big pool.

Instead of betting against the house (like in a casino), you’re betting against everyone else who’s placing a bet. The house takes their cut off the top.

Charlie explains that “any damn fool can see that a horse carrying a light weight with a wonderful win rate and a good post position is way more likely to win”… but…”if you look at the odds, the bad horse pays 100 to 1, whereas the good horse pays 3 to 2.”

However, unlike a pari-mutuel system, the stock market isn’t zero-sum – as the overall market continually grows, one person’s gain isn’t necessarily another’s loss.

Similarly, the stock market can resemble the casino if you are a short-term, speculative trader.

As such, the stock market is either

  1. A gambling machine
  2. A reliable wealth-creation machine

The only difference between 1 & 2 is your holding period.