It was nice to see C S Lewis as a reminder we’ve kinda been here before.
One of the things which helped groups during the fight for the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in the US was Joanna Macy’s “despair work”, which was developed from individual grief work.
Joanna started in intelligence and has been facing X-risks and slow actions of governments with others since the 1970s, and built a network of people doing that, and she still does. She did a lot in Cernobyl, and did some of the earliest longtermism and deep time work on nuclear waste storage.
Her despair work has been adapted for climate change and rainforest protection, so I’m sure it could be adapted for AI and other Xrisks/Srisks too, and even tougher goals like achieving universal veganism, instituting rational policymaking or “dealing with parents” ;-)
Trainers in despair work:
https://workthatreconnects.org/find-a-facilitator/, or ask me, or Dr Chris Johnstone for recommendations.
Trainer’s Manual for groups (recommended):
- Coming Back to Life, Joanna Macy
Books:
- Despair and Empowerment in the Nuclear Age, Joanna Macy
- Active Hope, Chris Johnstone and Joanna Macy
More recent video:
(be ready to filter some of the 1970s vocabulary; they’re both confident with intense emotion)
An advocate can indeed be a good idea, but “pushy” can backfire—wise, assertive, well-informed and tactical/strategic/realistic could be better than pushy.
>Get a second medical opinion
Only worth doing if likely to be different—be cautious about assuming you know better, especially in mental health, where your condition may be biasing your thinking (eg anxiety) or your hope about offered solutions (eg. depression). Trust your doctor or don’t trust, but don’t play games or turn it into a fight.
>Consider alternative medicine treatments
If this means exercise, massage, Alexander Technique, fine, but be just as rational/critical about the others as mainstream solutions.
>Medical experts usually don’t have statistical skills (get statistics questions wrong)
Does not apply to geneticists and good surgeons in good surgical units. Does apply to many EAs.
>The median doctor reads the result section of the abstract of a paper, not even a whole paper or a whole abstract.
Doctors are not scientists or researchers, can’t cover the whole field in detail. GPs are trained up on common conditions, and refer on with rarer or more challenging conditions. In many countries they have CPE to keep up with robust research. EAs and rationalists tend to cherry pick lower quality, small, open lable or animal studies with the answers they want.
In the UK, NICE helps get around this, though it may be over-influenced by some pharma (especially with chronic conditions) and cost considerations.
>Cookbook approach: medical system has very rigid rules, it’s harder and harder to be making personalised care.
That’s why you still need a good GP, who specialises in YOU, and knows you over time.
> - solutions that make money if people keep taking the drugs.
True for things like heart disease, arthritis, but still better than not having a solution.
>Curing someone will make a pharma company bankrupt.
No—really good solutions make a fortune. Can be a downer with vaccines, but for a different company that was previously doing treatments—think of cervical cancer, now solved by HPV vaccine, or improved treatment for ulcers. You seem to be repeating memes/prejudices/negative dogmas without supplying evidence.
>Medical system—downplays the side effects of the treatment.
“Medical system” is a bit unspecific—who do you mean? For pharma, mostly no—tends to overplay them, especially in patient leaflets, to prevent expensive litigation. Yes with heart surgery, but their ‘excuse’ may have some validity: people are scared enough already, so discussing a long list of things which rarely happen can be counter-productive.
USA and Italy tend to be worse on this, because of pay-per-treatment. UK better because of NHS and innate conservatism/caution, but heart surgeons still a problem.
>Blind to the side effects
Your evidence?
>Making decisions around the body as a whole system, where specialists don’t necessarily notice the whole body.
Again this is why a GP/family doctor is good, can see you as a while person, knows if you tend to overplay or underplay symptoms.
It was an early shock to me to discover that alternative practitioners can be even more unwholistic, very fixed on a single body system and single solution. Conversely, a medical specialist can be curious about home environment, social life, etc. Anyone, from any background, can be more or less “whole person”.
>Medical orthodoxy can be wrong
Of course, but overall less wrong and by law more accountable than heterodox, alternative, anti-vax, nature fallacy, and googledocs.
>Vit D from the sun is more beneficial than BCC skin cancers are bad for you.
You can take vit D supplements in winter. Outdoor exercise is good. Sunburn is bad. Common sense rocks!
>People live longer with the cancers because of the health benefits of the Vit D
Robust evidence on this? Can the vitamin D come from food/supplements?
Are hats, clothes and sunscreen still net positive if applied intelligently?
>Orthodoxy does change very slowly ~15 years from discovery to usage in the field.
Not always: in the pandemic, steroids, proning were adopted very fast, and mRNA was embraced.
Cost-saving options tend to be rolled out faster(!)
Sometimes new treatments in the private sector and new miracle supplements turn out to be nonsense. Again NICE or Mayo clinic are a good place to check, or Health Nerd (Gideon), or really good systematic reviews.
>Different countries have different recommendations (Australia, America, etc)
True, but not vastly different. NICE in UK and Scandinavians are good standbys. Beware India which tends to go for polypharmacy, HCQ and Ivermectin, and Madagascar which goes for unproven herbs.
>The insiders in the medical system know who’s who.: which doctors are good and which are bad. This can save your life.
This is great advice. A good GP is really helpful for this—they want you back from any specialist or surgery in good shape. With patient reviews, try to focus on outcomes rather than charm etc. ie. prioritise results rather than “bedside manner” or agreeability.
>5 year rule on new drugs
Don’t take anything under 5 years old. Wait for it to be field tested if you have the luxury of time.
That’s bad advice with mRNA for cancer, challenge trials in a pandemic, drugs with fewer side effects, Viagra, GPL-1 (though gastric bands may be better value for some)
>Watch the news for any drugs you are taking for any new information.
OK but don’t get paranoid: anxiety can cause more problems than drug side effects.
>You may know family relevant conditions and you may know them better than the medical system.
Good to discuss with family doctor/GP.
>If trying an intervention you should be able to tell if it’s working
Not always—typically people expect results too soon, which tends to favour more aggressive treatments with more side effects, or potentially addictive “feel good” drugs like diazepam and opioids for pain. A good GP, clinical psychologist or physio will nag you to keep going, give it time, especially with anti-depressants, physio exercises, CBT, etc.
Be patient.
>Every medical intervention has side effects
Vitamins? physiotherapy? polio vaccine? insulin? CBT? oxygen? abscess treatment? tooth filling? glasses?
>Surgery is dangerous
It depends which surgery. Sometimes, often, delaying surgery is dangeorus.
>Some medicines are poisons
mainly in overdose
>Get and keep a copy of every test that is ever done to you
Good advice!
>The best medical experience is not having a medical experience—be healthy instead.
Get sleep
Be fit/exercise
Nutritious diet
Agreed. Add “enjoyable social interaction”.