I'm rather late here so I'll keep this short since I'm probably just talking to myself, but hey it's fun to organize one's thoughts anyhow. I could argue that C

I'm rather late here so I'll keep this short since I'm probably just talking to myself, but hey it's fun to organize one's thoughts anyhow. I could argue that CRISPR is more like a chainsaw than a scalpel, but I think things like this are tangential. In general a lot of the research around aging is more motivated by a desired outcome than a the evidence in question. Telomeres, for instance, are clearly correlational rather than causal with contrary evidence in numerous species such as mice most obviously. In general there seems to be practically a rule that any observation of biological immortality is later met with a refutation. For instance lobsters are observed to eventually stop even trying to moult as they age, which inevitably leads to their death. Senescence manifesting differently in different species obviously does not imply immortality. People, even very smart people, have a habit of lying to themselves when they want something to be true. Obviously religion is a good example of this in the past. And in the present I think we're largely just replacing religion with pseudo-scientific hypotheses to the same end. For instance I personally am a strong believer in the simulation hypothesis, at least I think I am. I don't know whether I "really" believe it's as sound as it seems, or if it's a coping mechanism to balance a secular worldview and the desire to not die. I mean it's not really even a theory since if it turns out to be true, and one day I simply 'wake up' - is that new reality "real" or just another simulation? But I'm at least aware of the fact I may well be lying to myself with a highly debatable theory.