>I'm pretty sure there ain't nothing you can do about this. Why not? Because evolution built it pretty strongly into our genes. Here's how I see it: if an organ

>I'm pretty sure there ain't nothing you can do about this. Why not? Because evolution built it pretty strongly into our genes. Here's how I see it: if an organism arose which had this "death gene" turned off, it would not adapt to sudden changes in the environment. It might be susceptible to a novel infectious agent which wipes out the whole species. Thus evolution tends to weed out immortal or very long-lived organisms. Your prediction is right, but you've expressed the conclusion wrong: thus long-lived organisms are unlikely to persist, i.e. removing a single "death gene" only allows you to experience one of the many other forms of death. The species is never at risk because any potential cause of death is always present. I believe that the current hypothesis is essentially that evolution does not need you around longer than it takes to produce and raise healthy offspring, and furthermore, it does not need you to reproduce beyond prime years when your offspring are likely to be healthiest. So genes having these effects are not selected for; furthermore because most genes have side-effects (e.g. sickle-cell anemia), they are likely selected against. >Look at this scary graph (with a logarithmic y axis!): >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gompertz%E2%80%93Makeham_law_o.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gompertz%E2%80%93Makeham_law_o.... >and then tell me that medical advances will do anything to make you live to 200 I wouldn't be surprised if we reach 150. "Medical advances" is a broadly-defined category. Indefinite extension is rather unlikely in the foreseeable future, though.