if a theory ... looks logical and supported by math and biological examples - it doesn't mean anything.
I will put this statement in front of me. It reminds me of my conversations with so-called angel investors, or most likely wannabe guys. They have no idea what they are dealing with; they are not able to perform deep data evaluation. Very primitive reactions to “flashy” attractors.
Experimental support means it works. This is how anything works. This is how Human civilization started and advanced: experience and experiments. Starting from daily experience and eventually launching rockets to the Moon and bringing people back from the Moon.
If an experiment works, I do not care if it contradicts current approaches and ideas. If something dramatically extends lifespan, even if it is “moonlight,” the ONLY experiment proves everything.
But you see, I didn't mentioned "experimental support" as nothing slowdowns human aging. All such theories use observational examples from other species. And such examples are just flashy attractors.
So the good question is what really slow downs human aging? One is natural selection for longevity - according to some data, Ashkenazi live 6 years longer and got that after 1000 years of selection.
“What really slows down human aging?”
Livine, by the way, talks too much, but what I need is experimental proof of his approach. And not just minor, sttistically significant lifespan extension. It MUST BE radical lifespan extension.
Animal models are very useful tools in the discovery of anti-aging interventions. Yet, every animal model has its limitations.
To overcome these limitations, the “radical life extension” concept was introduced, meaning that substantial lifespan extension must be achieved in animal model(s) to be successfully translated to humans.
A 100–150% lifespan extension has been shown in C. elegans with a drug that has a long history of transient (1–2 weeks max) application in humans.
I expect that this compound will definitely work in humans if applied chronically, as a daily dose for a few weeks or months. The compound has a definitive, evolutionarily conserved molecular mechanism of action: it restores a balance between mtDNA replication and transcription. It actually works quite well in tissue culture on normal human cells.
Guess how many feedback responses I have had in public places like Telegram, VK, and LinkedIn, and my favorite, beloved angel investors, young men with very unfocused, shifty eyes? That was a rhetorical question. Zero is the answer.
And I am not complaining or whining. This is the normal nature of humans: to be involved in light conversations about aging for quite a few years in a row, and then die after that. It is alright, it is OK. Almost all of us will die.
AI summary: "Biologist Dr. Michael Levin views aging as a morphostasis defect and a loss of goal-directedness, suggesting that cells naturally lose their biophysical "blueprints" once embryonic development is complete. Instead of being primarily caused by accumulated molecular damage, aging occurs because the cellular collective "forgets" its long-term anatomical purpose and structural setpoints."
On my view, the theory looks reasonable, but it is the property of most theories of aging.
In other words, if a theory of aging looks logical and supported by math and biological examples - it doesn't mean anything. Many theories have the same level of proof and it is not surprising because aging has evolved as a balance of many mechanisms, and also there are many species to find examples of anything, and also math models can be adapted until they give the needed result.
My main argument against Levin is aesthetic: he uses soul-like speech (bio electricity, goal-directedness) which may be attractive for people who unconsciously search God.