CRITIQUE OF THE NON-PROGRAMMED AGING RATIONALE
“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
– Sherlock Holmes
In all realms of scientific knowledge, the aging paradigm is unique. It has never been questioned or tested scientifically. No theory successfully explains what aging is or how or why it happens. It is a set of preconceptions based solely on subjective perceptions. Everyone gets old, becomes infirm and dies, so aging is assumed to be a monolithic, inevitable, irreversible and genetically inherited trait.
This essay will focus on the Non-Programmed Aging (NPA) paradigm. Prior to the the work of the Institute, no one has ever questioned the assumption that FDS is a genetically inherited trait. The debate has always been between the two rationales that attempt to explain how a trait that is so clearly detrimental to the individual organism is even possible given the principles of natural selection. Since Darwin proffered only two possible rationales, NPA proponents appear to assume that they have made their case simply by establishing that there is no distinct physiological mechanism that causes aging in most species.¹ As Sherlock Holmes said, in a universe in which there are only two alternatives, eliminating one means that the other, no matter how improbable, must be correct.
As noted in the essay entitled “Critique of the Programmed Aging Rationale,” PA adherents have never advanced a theoretical framework that explains why all organisms share a distinct physiological mechanism that causes organisms to deteriorate over time. At best, they have suggested a rationale for how such a mechanism could be consistent with evolution. However, the PA advocates have a compelling argument why the evolutionary neglect view championed by the NPA camp is also fatally defective.
By emphasizing the importance of the human maintenance system, the New Paradigm bolsters this argument. Intrinsic damage has afflicted every complex organism that has ever existed. For evolution to have designed humans without taking intrinsic damage into account would be akin to designing an airplane without taking gravity into account. Thus goes the PA argument, the failure of evolution to endow humans with an effective maintenance system proves that there must be some evolutionary benefit to aging. The Institute agrees with the NPA proponents that humans do not have a programmed aging mechanism. But it also agrees with the PA proponents that evolution could not have overlooked intrinsic damage.
Since intrinsic damage is an inexorable force, principles of natural selection predict that each species is endowed with a maintenance system that remains effective throughout the natural lifespan of that species, and the empirical data confirms that prediction. See the essay entitled “Aging in Other Species.” Since both the PA paradigm and the NPA paradigm appear to be fatally defective, the New Paradigm embraces the third alternative. Rather than being an aspect of a natural monolithic aging process, FDS is itself a degenerative disorder that results from an environmental factor disrupting the intended operation of the maintenance system.
Since the New Paradigm concurs with the NPA paradigm with respect to its primary tenet (in most species, there is no physiological aging mechanism per se), this essay will focus on the key difference between the New Paradigm and the NPA point of view. A primary focus of the New Paradigm is the significance of the human maintenance system. A core preconception of the NPA paradigm is that human maintenance processes, if such processes even exist, are irrelevant to the discussion.
How NPA Views the Human Maintenance System
One reason that NPA proponents shy away from the maintenance system itself is that the acknowledgement that there are biological structures, such as the endocrine system, that are heavily involved in the operation of the maintenance system, exposes a fatal weakness in the NPA paradigm. Biological structures mutate. So long as there is any evolutionary benefit to be gained, a mutation that would allow the maintenance process to ward off FDS for a longer period of time (i.e., past the age of 20) would be favored by natural selection. So the only way to rationalize the preconception that the human maintenance system is incapable of preventing FDS in humans once they have entered their third decade of life would be to argue that either
(i) there is no evolutionary benefit to delaying the onset of FDS; or
(ii) delaying the onset of FDS is simply impossible.
That leaves NPA proponents with the argument that an effective maintenance system is simply impossible. As is the case with many issues that relate to the aging paradigm, much of the discussion is based on preconceptions and hidden assumptions rather than explicit argument. For example although NPA proponents deny the existence of any aging mechanism per se, they nonetheless unquestioningly accept the aging paradigm’s preconception that all physiological changes that are statistically associated with increasing chronological age constitute a single monolithic trait, with that trait being a process that is designed to result in death. The resulting hidden preconception is that the sole purpose of the maintenance system is to prevent organisms from dying. If an effective maintenance system is defined to be one that makes organisms immortal, then an effective maintenance system would of course be impossible.
Isolating FDS
Effective Maintenance Systems are Possible
Another variation on the impossibility argument is the assertion that maintenance processes can’t be completely effective because no biological process can be perfect.² It is true that no single maintenance process is perfect. But evolution has taken this into account. The human maintenance system includes backup maintenance processes that function at all levels of biological organization.
An effective maintenance system is one that prevents diminutions in functionality. The principles of natural selection predict that each mammalian species is endowed with a maintenance system that remains completely effective during the natural lifespan of that species. When limited to the evolutionary environment (where robust predator populations limit the natural lifespans of all species) that prediction is correct.³ If all mammalian species have maintenance systems that are 100% effective in the evolutionary environment, it’s difficult to accept the argument the it is impossible for humans to have a maintenance system that is effective past the age of 20.
Empirical Evidence
A related flaw in the preconception that the prevalence of FDS proves that effective maintenance systems are impossible is that the conclusion relies on the assumption that phenotype always matches genetic potential. The Institute uses the term “genetic potential” rather than genotype to highlight another misconception of the aging paradigm. The aging paradigm assumes phenotype is strictly determined by genotype, and that variances from genotype are rare and minor exceptions. In fact, the typical human never reaches her genetic potential at any point in her lifetime. The deviation between phenotype and genetic potential is typically quite large, and increases as the symptoms of FDS worsen over time.
Where, as here, the question is one of genetic potential there can be no anomalies. If dysfunctionality is something that is genetically designed to occur only in old people, then, barring some genetic defect (or other environmental cause), no young person would suffer from dysfunctionality. Intrinsic damage is an inexorable force. The only way it would be possible for any older person to be healthy and strong is if that person has an effective maintenance system. And the principles of evolution dictate that if one person has an effective maintenance system, we all have that genetic potential.
- One commentator who supports the PA point of view describes the NPA approach to be one of eliminating PA as an alternative, and then “devising the least implausible non-programmed theory and then constructing the least implausible interpretations of empirical evidence that support the theory.” Goldsmith TC, On the programmed/non-programmed aging controversy, Biochemistry (2012).
- Gladyshev VN, Aging: progressive decline in fitness due to the rising deleteriome adjusted by genetic, environmental, and stochastic processes, Aging Cell (2016).
- Since the prediction is nothing more than the application of basic principles of natural selection, it must be correct. See the essay entitled “Aging in Other Species.”