ACCEPTING THE NEW PARADIGM

“Be skeptical, ask questions, demand proof. Demand evidence. Don’t take anything for granted. But here’s the thing: When you get proof, you need to accept the proof. And we’re not that good at doing that.”

Michael Specter

At one time, humanity shared the subjective perception that the earth is flat. That perception of reality is adequate so long as the universe consists of a single village. However, the flat earth paradigm must give way as scientific knowledge develops. Over the centuries, substantially all physical sciences have undergone similar changes. Paradigm shifts improve our understanding of objective reality. A better understanding of objective reality allows us to effectively utilize improving technologies to solve real world problems.

This translation of subjective perceptions into objective reality is perhaps the primary purpose of science. The sun rises in the east every morning. Our subjective perception is that the sun is revolving around the earth. Science tells us that the objective reality is that the apparent motion of the sun is caused by the rotation of the earth.

In his 1962 book, the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn used the term “paradigm” to describe the set of preconceptions that is generally understood to represent objective reality in a particular field of science for a period of time. Most of the work of scientists is “normal science.” The then-current paradigm provides the conceptual framework for analyzing observations. The paradigm also determines what questions can be asked and what types of experiments are to be conducted. But if a paradigm is flawed, normal science eventually stagnates. Significant advances in science – scientific revolutions – occur following paradigm shifts, which involve a change in our fundamental perception of reality. Following a paradigm shift, scientists re-examine prior observations and design new experiments from within an improved conceptual framework. A field of science that has stagnated is revitalized.

From the dawn of human civilization, the aging paradigm has been a central conceptual framework for the life sciences. Young people are healthy and strong; older people suffer from progressive deterioration of strength, vitality and health. The infirmities of aging are inevitable and irreversible, and the biological changes that we experience with advancing chronological age are an integral part of a genetically inherited aging process that ultimately results in death. Unlike the other physical sciences, that paradigm has not shifted over the millennia.

Many of the other essays on this website have discussed the flaws in the current paradigm. If scrutinized in any detail, none of its preconceptions are consistent with objective reality. Moreover, its fundamental preconception – that biological aging is a genetically inherited trait – cannot be reconciled with the principles of natural selection.

By contrast, the New Paradigm is consistent both with all empirical observations and with the principles of natural selection. In addition, it provides simple, yet powerful, explanations for a number of anomalies that cannot be explained by the current aging paradigm.

But despite the undeniable superiority of the New Paradigm, the scientific establishment adamantly refuses to consider that there might be anything wrong with the current paradigm. Some of the reasons for the resistance are discussed in the essay entitled “Paradigmatic Norms and Paradigm Paralysis.” A cynic might suggest that a reason for the resistance is that the New Paradigm suggests that FDS (and thus all of the age-associated degenerative diseases) is a correctable degenerative disorder. The enormous profits of the pharmaceutical industry are based in large part on drugs designed to treat (as opposed to prevent or cure) those diseases. The prospect of all of those diseases being eradicated, thus rendering all of those drugs obsolete, is anathema to the industry that funds the vast majority of life sciences research.

It’s important to keep in mind that the New Paradigm is based on just a single change of perspective – the acknowledgement that humans, and all other complex metazoans, have maintenance systems that remove and replace damaged and dead components. It’s indisputable that we lose billions of cells every day. If they are not replaced by magic, logic dictates that there must be a physiological system that performs that task. And, as discussed in the essay entitled “Intrinsic Damage and the Human Maintenance System,” even a cursory review of the literature reveals an enormous amount of information regarding a number of specific maintenance processes. The only way to cling to the current aging paradigm, which is based in large part on the preconception that maintenance processes are either nonexistent or inherently inadequate,¹ is to refuse to acknowledge that there is another possible paradigm.

Once the existence of a physiological maintenance system is acknowledged, all of the other concepts discussed in these essays flow directly from the application of the principles of natural selection. As the evolutionary precursors to humans gained the capacity to prevail over the environmental factors that kill off most species at younger ages, genetic enhancements that extended the effective life of the hominid maintenance system would have conferred substantial evolutionary benefits. There can be no argument that it would be beneficial for both the individual and for the species for a 50-year old (or older), human to be as healthy, strong and capable of reproduction as he or she was as a 20-year old. Thus, the principles of natural selection predict that humans would be endowed with fully effective maintenance systems – systems that would ward off FDS throughout the natural lifespan of the human species.

This essay will discuss what some of the ramifications would be if the New Paradigm were to be generally accepted as being superior to the current aging paradigm.

There Can Be No Design Flaws

One practical effect of accepting the New Paradigm would be an acknowledgement that natural selection cannot make mistakes. Under the current aging paradigm, it’s assumed that accumulating damage that results in progressively declining functionality is a genetically inherited trait. In other words, humans suffer age-associated disorders because of design flaws. If humans have design flaws that result in physiological processes that are inefficient or counterproductive, then it makes sense to introduce pharmaceutical interventions that disrupt or interfere with those flawed processes.

As a result, the current aging paradigm supports the bizarre notion that pharmaceutical companies can create pills that do a better job of selecting and perfecting basic human physiological processes than a billion years of natural selection. The New Paradigm is based upon the premise that natural selection cannot make mistakes and there can be no design flaws. If there is some physiological function that appears to be inefficient or counterproductive, that just means that humans do not understand what is really going on.

A similar analysis applies to the proposed genetic interventions that are based on the premise that lifespan can be extended through genetic manipulation. If we were genetically programmed to suffer from FDS (i.e., if FDS were a genetically inherited trait), then it would make sense to expend enormous resources in an effort to identify the aging/FDS gene so that it could be altered. Even if we do not have a specific physiological process that pro-actively causes aging, but merely contract FDS as a result of genetic neglect, it might make sense to devise a genetic enhancement that would allow us to prevent or cure FDS. But we are already endowed with that genetic enhancement – the human maintenance system. Altering genes may someday have an effect on certain aspects of aging; but there is no need, or practical effect to be derived from, attempting to manipulate genes to remedy FDS.

Scientific Revolution

The Institute created this website to present its case for a paradigm shift. The Institute strongly believes that the very nature of aging must be re-examined. Paradigm shifts have occurred only a handful of times in the history of the life sciences. But the shift that would result from acceptance of the New Paradigm has been inevitable since the introduction of the theory of evolution by natural selection. The New Paradigm is simply a corollary of that theory. The fundamental preconception of the current aging paradigm – that FDS is a genetically inherited trait – is diametrically opposed to the principles of natural selection. If the principles of natural selection represent objective reality – which they do – then the current aging paradigm must be rejected.

By changing the fundamental perception of reality, paradigm shifts pave the way for scientific revolutions — significant advances in the pertinent scientific field.² But the term “Scientific Revolution” also refers to the emergence of modern science commencing with the publication of the Copernican heliocentric theory in 1543. Prior to the Scientific Revolution, religion played a major role in explaining natural phenomena, and it’s believed by many that religion played a role in inhibiting scientific progress. For example, in 1615, the Roman Inquisition concluded that heliocentrism was absurd and heretical because it contradicted Holy Scripture. Because of pressure from the church, Galileo was eventually forced to recant his support for the theory.

Over the succeeding centuries, science came to be acknowledged as an autonomous discipline, distinct from both philosophy and religion. For the most part, religion is no longer a significant impediment to scientific progress. People who accept the Bible as the literal truth may still say that they don’t “believe” in evolution, but no serious academician would reject evolutionary theory on that basis. Aging science is the one remaining exception. To a great extent, it is still treated as a mystical phenomenon that is not governed by cause and effect or subject to the other rules of natural science.

Evolutionary theory predicts that humans should not suffer from FDS, yet we do. Rather than accepting the reality that the theory cannot be wrong, the prevailing paradigm assumes that the theory is flawed. Scientific advancement generally depends on the interplay between experimental studies and theory. But because life scientists believe that theory is flawed, there is very little interplay between experimental studies and theory when it comes to age-related science. Rather than relying on theory, most of what we think we know about aging and age-associated degenerative disease is based solely on statistical studies. Statistical studies can do a good job of predicting what is likely to happen most of the time with respect to large groups of people. For that reason, statistical studies are well suited for the social sciences. But statistical studies of large groups cannot predict precisely what will happen in any individual case, which is critical when dealing with human health issues. And from a scientific perspective, a critical problem in relying solely on statistical studies is that they cannot tell us why particular phenomena must happen. All they can do is reinforce (or, on rare occasions, contradict) the preconceptions of the person who designed the study. As a result, in many ways, aging science is more akin to the social sciences than it is to the natural sciences.

In simplistic terms, acceptance of the New Paradigm would bring closure to the Scientific Revolution by acknowledging that all natural phenomena, including aging, are governed by natural science. At its core, natural science involves developing physical laws that predict exactly what will happen in particular cases, and theories that explain why what will happen must happen. All phenomena in nature have causes. If science can determine the cause of any phenomenon (including, especially, FDS and the age-associated degenerative diseases that are symptoms of FDS), technological interventions can influence the resulting phenomenon.

Consequences of Acknowledging that FDS is a Disorder

In the minds of most people, there is an inextricable linkage between the “infirmities of aging” and death. All humans get old and die. This belief, and thus the aging paradigm itself, is so ingrained that it goes beyond a mere subjective perception. There is a metaphysical component. People form religious beliefs to cope with the knowledge that they are going to die. Either evolution or some higher power wants them to die, and the infirmities of aging are part of that dying process. That spiritual component exacerbates the problem of trying to pin down what “aging” encompasses. To question any aspect of the aging paradigm is to trespass into religion.³ Many people believe that aging just may not be a problem for scientists to try to solve.

On the other hand, everyone accepts the proposition that the medical establishment can and should do what it can to treat age-associated degenerative diseases and to address the risk factors that contribute to those diseases. But attacking the “aging process,” which is the root cause of these diseases, is a different proposition altogether. Aging and death are associated with thousands of years of mysticism and superstition. There is significant opposition to attempts to interfere with these “natural” processes. The symptoms of FDS have always been assumed to be an inextricable aspect of a natural aging process that inevitably results in death. Thus there has never been any particular urgency about dealing with the underlying problem. Instead, the medical establishment has devoted enormous resources to ameliorating the symptoms of the diseases and attempting to keep critically ill patients alive.

Inherent in accepting the New Paradigm is the acknowledgement that FDS is a preventable and curable degenerative disorder that affects the typical human commencing in about the third decade of life. Acknowledging that FDS is a disorder rather than an inevitable aspect of a natural aging process would have a profound effect on public perception and the approaches taken by the healthcare system. Our healthcare system is quite adept at responding to medical conditions that are considered unnatural or particularly dangerous. The responses to the Ebola virus and COVID-19 pandemic are just two examples.

In terms of scope, there is no comparison between infectious diseases, or even all forms of cancer, and FDS. FDS is by far the greatest epidemic in the history of the world. Every person who dies of “old age” or “natural causes” dies as the result of FDS. That’s been estimated to be at least 100,000 people per day worldwide. Even at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the various age-associated degenerative diseases that are actually symptoms of FDS remained the leading cause of death. Moreover, the majority of the people who succumbed to COVID did so because they were already suffering from FDS, which had weakened their immune systems and/or the organs or systems that ultimately failed.

The economic costs associated with FDS are astronomical. Such costs are discussed in the essay entitled “Eradicating FDS.”

With the understanding that FDS is a preventable disorder comes the realization that the symptoms of late stage FDS are horrific. FDS causes the slow, progressive destruction of every organ and system in the human body. What could be more frightening than the disintegration of the mind? Or the progressive crippling of the body? The accumulating deterioration and ultimate failure of the circulatory system, the urinary system, the reproductive system, etc.? Surveys frequently show that many, if not most, of us fear the infirmities of aging – becoming physically and/or mentally feeble – more than dying itself.

Moreover, the symptoms of FDS are not limited to old people. Any person who is not as fully functional at her current age as she was when she was at her physiological peak is suffering symptoms of FDS. Practically everyone over the age of 30 is affected to some degree.

This website serves as a manifesto arguing that that FDS should be acknowledged to be a preventable and curable disorder. As such, the medical establishment should prioritize finding those preventions and cures. But the Institute is not just exhorting the medical establishment to “do something.” This website suggests a new path that will ultimately lead to the solution to the problem. FDS is a degenerative disorder that is caused by an environmental factor interfering with the proper functioning of the human maintenance system. Once scientists have identified what that environmental factor is, developing interventions that will neutralize that factor and restore the proper functioning of the maintenance system should be within the capabilities of existing medical technology.

As discussed in the essay entitled “Aging in Other Species,” and mentioned in a number of other essays, aging theorists have long recognized the fact that, in their evolutionary environment, species other than humans never show any signs of aging. It’s remarkable that the same aging theorists accept without question the notion that an effective maintenance system is impossible for any complex metazoan.
A number of new hypotheses explaining age-related phenomena that result directly from the acceptance of the New Paradigm are discussed in the essay entitled “Scientific Revolution.”
See De Grey, ADNJ, Life span extension research and public debate: societal considerations, Studies in Ethics Law and Technology (2007).

The next essay in this Section is “Eradicating FDS.”