>>14073296>programmed death hypothesisNo strong scientific backing which is why it isn't popular.
>It isn't a single thing but is likely programmed, at least partially, because there are many hints supporting this hypothesis: Asians having longer average lifespan, rat (2 years) vs naked mole-rat (30 years) despite the latter having more ROS damage, lower cancer rate in whales vs humans despite them having more cells, immortal hydrozoans, +6000 years plants.This doesn't support your hypothesis, infact it undermines it.
>That's why I think aging is caused at biochemical level and could be at least delayed by modern biotechnology.Meaningless, physiology is biochemical.
>>14073316You'll have to give a definition of aging.
Cancer isn't caused by aging rather a very broad range of possible mutations; gain/loss of function.
Cardiovascular is caused by physiological processes and enviromental damage (from micro to mesoscale), again this isn't started by aging.
Auto-immune diseases are different from inflammaging and also aren't started by 'ageing'.
>Improving DNA repair/protection mechanisms could potentially ward off cancer.Yes but this isn't an astute observation and common knowledge for more than 40+ years
I gather by your post a lack of basic biology.