> 1. The idea that lobsters experience no senescence is, at best, unproven. True, but irrelevant. They have extraordinary longevity. That much is proven. > 2.

> 1. The idea that lobsters experience no senescence is, at best, unproven. True, but irrelevant. They have extraordinary longevity. That much is proven. > 2. Even if we assume that lobsters experience no senescence or vastly less than humans, there is no particular reason to believe that the source of their longevity does not depend on things that are vastly incompatible with humans. If "the only difference" between humans and lobsters is genetics (it's sort of not, see below) it can still be the case that the only way to get the longevity of lobsters into humans is to turn humans more-or-less entirely into lobsters. Also true, but irrelevant. It may be the case that we have to have the exact genome of a lobster in order to obtain this benefit. However, this fact has no bearing on my point: Genetics and longevity are deeply related.