“Aging” IS natural selection. Those who age, have a much greater chance of dying. The recent “pandemic” bore that out. The old (and diseased) were several times more likely to die than the young and healthy.
The writer of the article equates “immortality” with “anti-aging,” the latter which is making those choices (selections) that keep them healthy and fit — to survive. That is the critical mistake non-critical thinkers make — thinking that simply living as long as possible is sufficient — rather than the quality of life (health) that makes a longer life more probable (survival).
They have it backwards — and if they program that into the cells and organisms, that will not guarantee immortality — but as we are already witnessing, simply longer lives in deterioration, dysfunction and agony — as the photos of Soros and Gates illustrate. However, Bezos seems to have taken the right track and transformed himself into a much healthier specimen than he ever was before — as illustrated in his recent photos.
As Darwin observed, better selection is what ultimately survives.
Abundance leads to more frequent selection, less the need for long life (not aging). A virus or germ might only need hours.
So then wouldn’t it follow that the opposite be true? Extremely rare single cell life forms needing the time to bump into each other or find a mechanism where by it splits into two. Not aging would be highly advantageous and yet still some calamity would at some point befall the cell, so not immortality.
Later, when there’s an abundance of these theoretically creature, aging would then become advantageous.
Seems like something you could extrapolate from Darwin’s theory. (For arguments sake.)