[Aaargh20318]

Why would there be? In the end we're just biological machines, albeit very complex ones. We're made of physical matter arranged in a specific way, physical matter can be manipulated. This means that if a biological machine is damaged or wears out, there is nothing that fundamentally prevent us from repairing it. The only thing that is needed is a proper understanding of how things are supposed to work, i.e. the desired working state, and the tooling to perform the repairs.

[t_serpico]

Sure, nothing fundamentally prevents us from repairing it from a physical standpoint. The practicality of it is the key question. While the machine analogy is partially useful, genes/proteins/cells are dynamic, adaptive, and can exhibit stochastic traits. This fundamentally contrasts them from traditional machines, and is the reason (imo) we suck at making effective therapies to even treat diseases where we think we know what is going on.

[dsign]

But practicality is just a technological problem. And not to make a fine point of it, the chips of the machine where you are writing or reading this receive far more “technological attention” than any human being. That fact in itself is not a technological problem, but a social one. In my opinion, at our point of technological development, aging is about 80% a technological problem and 20% a social problem. The speed of research and development in technologies to combat aging, i.e., the derivatives of the numbers above, are probably in an opposite proportion: 95% of the slowness in research can be attributed to social problems, 5% to technological.