There are animals that don't "age"[1] so of course it's programmed. There's a balance between how often you want to recombine genetics and how long you want to be able to remember. It seems like a better system would have humans decline differently (i.e. no dementia) but having people grow old is almost certainly beneficial to the species.
[1] Their risk of death does not increase after reaching adulthood. I.e. every year after adulthood has the same risk of unexpected death. Humans and other animals that age have their risks of death climb in "old" age.
That you can go 300km/h in an F1 car, doesn't mean you can go that fast on a bicycle, even though they're both in the genus "wheel-based vehicles for human transport". The jellyfish is a rather different animal. Trees can grow very old, but there's a reason why you didn't use those as an example: too far from human biology. That jellyfish may be at a similar distance.
It would be a scientific process to find the limits, but I don't see a scientific reason to find out how to overcome them. Science' job description is oberving and explaining, not altering nature.
We have the ability to convert to becoming immortal. It actually happens to some of us. It sucks though. We call this cancer. Turns out the immortal cells become selfish. But you can scrape some off yourself, throw them in a petri dish, supplement growth media, and they will divide forever.
aeturnum · · focus · HN ↗
[1] Their risk of death does not increase after reaching adulthood. I.e. every year after adulthood has the same risk of unexpected death. Humans and other animals that age have their risks of death climb in "old" age.
manyatoms · · focus · HN ↗
gavinray · · focus · HN ↗
tgv · · focus · HN ↗
pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
tgv · · focus · HN ↗
pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
With medicine it's really the entire point, it's science we learn to improve humanity.
tgv · · focus · HN ↗
asdff · · focus · HN ↗
fluffybucktsnek · · focus · HN ↗