We will live forever
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    1.0   Baaaad scientist!

    Gavrilov is the typical mainstream 'scientist'. The system has conditioned him well to its standards. He does
    'science' the old-fashioned way, the way mathematical physicists continue to do it in relativity and quantum
    today. Gavrilov dedicates many hours to theorizing and predicting and few to conceptualizing and reasoning.
    He is all theory and no hypothesis. The modern researchers are eager for you to share their religion, yet they
    don't take the trouble to filter out the bugs or to understand the scientific method in the first place.

    Gavrilov's pet peeve is aging. He has an impressive website, and probably regards himself as an expert on
    the subject. Judging by the number of hits, this is not limited merely to his opinion. In his paper, Gavrilov
    does a good job of synthesizing the history of aging research and the theories proposed over the years.
    That's the good news. The bad news consists of two thorns in my side that don't let me sleep at nights:

    •   that the Theory of Programmed Death is dead
    •   therefore, we can extend life significantly, perhaps indefinitely


    2.0   The death of programmed death?

    Gavrilov invokes three arguments that in the establishment's opinion have been tested beyond reasonable
    doubt and which debunk Weismann's Evolutionary Theory of Programmed Death. In a nutshell, this theory
    says that a cell can divide only so many times. This part has been confirmed experimentally. [1]  It is
    Weismann's conclusion which still causes fist-fights at the symposiums. He inferred (and apparently in later
    life changed his mind) that Mother Nature somehow 'programs' a species to die, each species having been
    allocated a specific life span.  

    The three arguments that Gavrilov claims have debunked Programmed Death go something like this:

    a.       To test whether species have an age limit, we should compare life spans in
    the wild and in the lab. We should discover that there is little difference. The
    reasoning behind this is that if animals living in the wild always meet their
    Maker way before their cells have a chance to split the maximum number of
    times, this particular invention of Mother Nature is worthless. It never has an
    opportunity to act in the wild. Experimental results show that there is in fact
    a huge difference between a lion living in the Serengeti and one watching TV
    in New York, which means that programmed death is wrong.

    b.      There should be an age at which individuals of a given species begin to die
    en masse. Gavrilov crunched data of lab animals and demonstrated to his
    satisfaction that this is a myth. [2]  Death curves do not suddenly break, but
    are rather nuanced and smooth.  

    c.       Predestined death goes against the grain of evolution, which is survival. By
    merely considering the case where the 'death' gene mutates, we suddenly
    have a species that lives forever and displaces all others.

    These lame arguments show what little capacity for reasoning people in the establishment have, or in the
    alternative, what little time they spend on conceptual issues. They rush to design experiments without
    bothering to cover all the bases.

    The first obvious problem with his arguments is that they don't factor in the chronological position of a
    species in its grand history. Is it the same to observe Dimetrodon at the beginning as it is to catch him at
    the end of the Permian? Shouldn't we expect Dimetrodon to have a greater life expectancy after 20 million
    years of washing and rinsing his genes? Not a single researcher in the field even considers whether the
    species under study is chronologically at the beginning or at the end of its life history. Of course, this is
    not a theory the numskulls are going to prove by studying Drosophila or running a test, but this only
    shows that the mainstream doesn't understand the scientific method. There is no requirement for a
    prediction or for an experiment in science!

    The excuse the mainstream gives for why chronological position is never factored in their studies is that:

    “ There is no reason to think that any species is particularly old; there is simply no
       way to know.” [3]

    What do you mean there is no way to know when you are old? Of course there is! If:

    •   you have trouble getting it up or making babies
    •   smallpox doesn't get to you anymore
    •   there are ever fewer mates around to drink beer with
    •   you don't like to travel
    •   you're too big for your britches

    ...then clearly you are chronologically out of spec!

    The way to tell whether a species is 'old', meaning that it is 'close' to the end of its cycle is by checking
    key parameters such as reproductive capability, resistance to disease, demographics, whether it has finally
    settled on an island, and whether it is at the end of Cope's Law. In fact, I will be bold and 'predict' a couple of
    living fossils that are still lying around and which are about to become extinct. One is the Macaw and the
    other the Californian Sequoia. They've done their time. They want to go to heaven now. We should let them
    die in peace.

    Macaws:
    •        have lost the ability to reproduce:

    “ blue macaws breed year round, they have a low reproductive rate…” [4]

    •        they have long lives:

    “ This is counteracted by their longevity; they have lifespans which last decades.” [4]

    •        because they are immune to natural diseases in the wild:

    I infer this from the Macaws' longevity and from the fact that the experts don't even
    mention disease as a factor in the reason for decline of the Macaws in the last couple
    of centuries. [5]

    •        because they have stopped migrating, settled down for thousands of years in the
    same region, and had time to overcome traditional diseases:

    “ The Hyacinth Macaw is especially vulnerable to capture, shooting and habitat
       destruction because it is... sedentary” [6]

    •        they are big:

    “ They are the largest birds in the parrot family in length and wingspan” [7]

    Likewise, the sequoias also seem to meet all of these requirements:

    •   reproduction:

    “ far fewer living sequoias have establishment dates in this century than in the
       preceding century... There is not nearly enough reproduction to maintain
       sequoia populations in these groves. John Muir was wrong; establishment
       of seedlings on mineral soil exposed by treefalls is not nearly sufficient to
       maintain sequoia populations.” [8]

    •   longevity:

    “ It is an evergreen, long-lived, monoecious tree living for up to 2,200 years” [9]

    •   disease-resistant:

    “ There are few other natural dangers for the redwoods. The high levels of tannic
       acid in redwood bark and heartwood help the trees to withstand disease and
       insect attacks that can readily be fatal to other trees. Scientists are currently
       resarching redwoods' resistance to Phytophthora ramorum, the fungus that
       causes sudden oak death.” [10]

    •   sedentary:

    “ Present grove boundaries appear to be remarkably stable. There is no evidence
       of any change in grove boundaries during the last 500 years or longer. A great
       majority of groves are undergoing a gradual decrease in density of giant
       sequoias due to low levels of regeneration. This decline in density began long
       before the influence of Western Civilization on the groves.” [11]

    •   size:

    “ the tallest tree in the world, reaching up to 115.5 m (379.1 ft) in height and 7 m
       (23 ft) diameter at the base” [12]

    That's why it is absolutely perplexing when the same researchers tell us that they have no clue why the
    Macaw and the Sequoias have trouble reproducing or why they've been around for so long:

    “ Munn et al. (1989) also urged further studies of breeding biology in relation to such
       factors as nest-site shortage (with the erection of nest-boxes if the results indicate
       the need), and such studies are now beginning: hence Guedes and Harper ( 1991 ),
       Munn et al. ( 1991 ), da Silva et al. (1991), these last in turn calling for radio-telemetry
       studies to determine whether food shortages are causing problems.” [13]

    “ We suggest that extreme longevity in parrots has evolved in response to species-
       specific characteristics of diet, habitat, and behavior that influence extrinsic mortality
       rates.” [13]

    “ viability of the [sequoia] seed is low, typically well below 15%. The low viability may
       be an adaptation to discourage seed predators, which do not want to waste time
       sorting chaff (empty seeds) from edible seeds.” [14]

    “ This decline in the number of seedlings was probably due to increasing brush
       competition.” [15]

    In short, the establishment does not yet understand why high reproduction is associated with decreased
    longevity:

    “ Increased reproductive effort has been found to be associated with a considerable
       reduction in longevity in a number of organisms, from Caenorhabditis to Drosophila
       to man (Partridge et al. 1987; Gems and Riddle 1996; Westendorp and Kirkwood
       1998). The costs of reproduction might in part result from a trade-off in the allocation
       of resources between fecundity and body maintenance or growth (Rolff 1992;
       Stearns 1992)”  [16]

    The reason macaws and sequoias do not reproduce is because they are old species. They have been
    around for too long and had ample time to conquer the typical diseases which devastated them in the
    past in the regions where they now make their last stand in the wild. We have direct evidence of this at
    least for the sequoias:

    “ The genus has a rich fossil record in western North America, represented by the
       Eocene and Oligocene fossil taxon Sequoia affinis and the pollen morphogenera
       Taxidiaceaepollenites and Sequoiapollenites.” [16]

    The reason the members of a fast reproducing species have trouble reaching its maximum lifespans is
    because the species is chronologically young.

    In effect, the bright minds of science are putting a gun to a species which has exhausted its genetic stock
    and forcing 'grandpas' to 'do it'. The attempt by conservationists to get these living fossils restarted is
    amusing. It's like the courtiers praying for David to be prolific again by strutting up his languid vital parts
    while the 16-year-old Sunamite bombshell strips. [17]  The 'experts' still haven't figured out the basic rules
    of nature. An old species is one which, because it finally stopped migrating or expanding, has conquered
    typical diseases for its region, grown large, has a long life span, and doesn't reproduce. We are staring at
    the last parrots and sequoias on Earth.

    The evidence that puts the icing on the cake comes from our own species. We may be a new species in the
    sense that we've only been around for 100,000 to 200,000 years. But we are an old species in the sense that
    we are the last descendants of the hominid dynasty that has been around for a few million years.

    'So what?' says the paleontologist.  Trilobites and ammonites were around for much longer.

    Aaah! But for one thing, trilobites and ammonites weren't as smart as we are. This is important because all
    species of plants and animals eventually conquer their last invisible enemies --  disease --  genetically and
    through natural selection. Hominids did it much faster, in our particular case through artificial means. There
    are no longer diseases that can wipe out mankind. AIDS, Ebola, mutated flu and polio bugs, etc., etc., etc.,
    kill a negligible portion of our global population. Certainly, they have no chance to stop our demographic
    expansion. Our fertility is rapidly declining for inevitable socio-economic reasons. We have no way of
    spurring fertility to the glorious levels of our great-grandfathers anymore. We are also sedentary now. We
    have populated the entire Earth, filled every niche, and are trapped on a huge island called Earth. We are
    going nowhere and have no place to go. We are also quickly growing in size in our final days, [18]  
    validating once again Cope's Law at least for apex predators. We will soon satisfy the final requirement
    when our ecological pyramid overturns. If Man with all his super-intelligence, foreknowledge, and
    technology cannot escape these constraints, neither could any other species in the plant or animal
    kingdoms.


    3.0   Life on life support

    Gavrilov attempts to get around my arguments by saying that he can extend the life of nematodes, [19]  
    fruitflies, [20] and mice [21]  by artificially enhancing their cells. In his opinion, this alone shows that
    Mother Nature does not have an old-age or death gene, for why would Man be able to overrule her
    otherwise? Gavrilov insinuates that we will one day be able to extend these benefits to our species and,
    who knows, perhaps even live forever, in which case it destroys my theory altogether. In fact, we seem
    to have a conflict of interests because his organization is in the business of selling this myth to gullible
    investors.

    Now you see why I attack Gavrilov so vehemently. There is no room on this planet for both of us; one of
    us will have to get off. Either you believe that Man is going to live forever because life-extension tricks
    can perpetually outflank Mother Nature or you conclude that one day our species must come to an end.

    There is something very troubling with what Gavrilov and like-minded people propose. He seems to be
    working in the wrong direction, at cross-purposes with our socio-economic realities. In the movie
    Logan's Run, our overcrowded society finally decides that it is best to kill people over 21 so that they
    won't crowd-out the new breeds. Considering the difficulties our present generation has in finding jobs,
    this may not be such a bad idea. The 18 year old runs over the 60 year old in the parking lot and gets to
    keep his job. We should be killing adults and not finding ways to extend their lives. Instead, Gavrilov,
    works day in and day out to increase human life expectancy. What for? Isn't he happy with the 80-year
    average life-span that Mother Nature blessed us with? I mean, compared to the poor voles who live but
    a measly year, our life spans are an eternity. We should be thankful and pray to the Virgin for the grace
    God bestowed on us. With the upcoming disappearance of jobs, the worst thing we can do is allow
    people to get older. Of course, no one wants to be the first to die; thus, the paradox.

    But so what if Gavrilov can extend the life of a human? We can also extend the size of humans by toying
    with their pituitary glands, [22]  or inject a Macaw with the psittacosis bug and prove that it has not yet
    developed defenses against the disease. What we're talking about here is nature. We want to know
    whether species in a natural setting have a limit on the amount they can age. Of course, if we put
    people on artificial  life support, we can also improve our life-expectancy statistics, but this will only
    blind side us to how the dinosaurs died. If we let Gavrilov's reasoning triumph, we can never come to
    the conclusion that the dinosaurs died of old age because he will always argue that species don't age
    and support his opinion with the marvels of enhanced life techniques and technologies. That's why his
    argument is so dangerous. It blind-sides us to what actually occurred in the past when 'intelligent' Man
    was not around. That's also why after studying gerontology for so long he can't answer a basic question
    such as What causes aging in humans? So far he hasn't determined whether late parenting increases
    life-span which is then inherited by offspring or whether life expectancy has indeed a genetic limit. [23]  
    Gavrilov will never discover a solution as long as he summarily brushes aside species aging as a result
    that he substitutes natural with artificial.

    Gavrilov has in effect deprived me of my argument that species become old and die. After studying the
    problem for so long and staring at species aging in the face, Gavrilov has made a 180 degree turn and
    reached the opposite conclusion: that species really don't age because we can readily extend their lives.
    Animals in the past simply disappeared for mysterious reasons. Perhaps God removed them or perhaps
    the paleontologists just need to do more experiments or find more bones for a clue. In his world there is
    no place for 'old'. The species that died --  99% of all that existed -- simply vanished because... because...
    well, because they couldn't compete with the next king of the mountain or maybe something went wrong
    with their genes or for whatever. Gavrilov doesn't answer the question and doesn't care. He's not
    concerned about the past. He just studies the future. That's how he makes his living.
L. and N. Gavrilov, Evolutionary Theories of  Aging and Longevity, The Scientific World Journal 2 (2002) 339–356.
You know what I think? I think that these aliens who captured us
are expecting us to ‘do it’! I think they are waiting for us to have a
baby. You know what I’m talking about, Martha? Do you still
remember? Sex? Babies? Fertility? So what do you say, Martha?
Why don’t we go through the motions and make them happy?
Maybe then they will leave us alone and let us die in peace.



    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008