This response applies both the above and its sibling comment, which are quite valid in asking that I should perhaps clarify further. So if I may: Yes, our cur

This response applies both the above and its sibling comment, which are quite valid in asking that I should perhaps clarify further. So if I may: Yes, our current "operating mode" (with an apparently built-in expiration date at roughly 2x peak fertility) is but one of (infinitely many adaptively stable configurations ("local minima" as it were, in the fitness landscape). It is by no means the only possible (let alone the best possible). As the above comment points out, we can easily imagine other operating modes that are also viable and stable. But the basic point I was trying to make is: though it isn't the only possible mode of operation for our species -- it is also far from random, and most likely the result of many interlocking tradeoffs in our basic genetic program (which we are just beginning to map out and understand). The upshot being -- my hunch is that, while we will probably figure out how to tweak some of the dials, attaining a substantially different mode of operation ("longevity for everyone", basically) will require changes substantially beyond tweaking of dials -- or a "patch" here and there. Most likely it will require something akin to a top-down rewrite (or that is, a comprehensive rewrite of many interlocking mechanisms at once). Which will require not only conceptual advances, but to be blunt, "trial and error" (live trials, most of which probably won't work out so well for the test subjects). That is to say -- qualitatively different from merely deriving a "patch" to our system sufficient to, say, obviate the risk to certain diseases like dementia or cancer.