There is a very interesting and recent article by Dr Aubrey de Grey (June 2015) about his rebuttal of a programmed aging leaving SENS strategy as a more realistic one. I report the abstract (bold is mine)
Do We Have Genes that Exist to Hasten Aging? New Data, New Arguments, But the Answer is Still No
Article in Current Aging Science 8(1) · June 2015
DOI: 10.2174/1874609808666150421131304
Abstract
... I conclude that, however much we might wish that aging were programmed and thus that the ill-health of old age could be greatly postponed just by disabling some aspect of our genetic makeup, the unfortunate truth is that no such program exists, ...
...
But I will make another post to clarify some of the mentioned programmed aging things.
So here is Dr. de Grey's definition of the programmed aging, from his above paper, available at the link niner shared above:
INTRODUCTION
Much of the debate concerning whether aging is programmed
has, as so often in science, suffered from mutual
misunderstanding about what is really being debated. It is
thus appropriate to begin with some precise definitions of
terms. In this paper, the following definitions will be used:
...
Programmed aging theory (PA): the contention
that aging in most metazoans occurs mainly due
to the action of genetic pathways whose selected
function is to accelerate that accumulation and
thereby hasten decline and death, without any compensating
individual evolutionary fitness benefit, only
non-individual benefit, and that species differences in
the rate of aging arise mainly from differences in the
strength of these “pro-aging” pathways.
Non-programmed aging theory (NPA): the
contention that aging in most metazoans occurs entirely
due to imperfections (gaps) in the organism’s
genetically-programmed pro-homeostatic arsenal persists
because selection exerts insufficient pressure to
drive the evolution of greater comprehensiveness of
that arsenal, and that species differences in the rate of
aging arise solely from differences in that selective
pressure, which arise in turn from differences in risk
of death from extrinsic causes such as predation.
...
What I wanted to say is that this however is just a subtype of the programmed aging theory, the self-destructive, or programmed organism death, from the programmed cell death.
Some scholars maintain this, eg.:
Josh Mitteldorf has an interesting blog where he sometimes gets on this subject. He is on the programmed aging side of things.
Most people misunderstand what aging is. It’s not just the public who have been deceived — Most scientists and medical researchers who study aging are on the wrong track.
The culprit is the “natural medicine” movement that has dominated thinking about our bodies for the last 50 years. “Respect the body’s wisdom. Work with the body to fix what has gone wrong.” This approach has worked so well with injuries and many diseases that it is understandable that people want to extend it to aging as well.
Diseases of aging have been treated as if they were something that goes wrong, something we have to help the body to fix. But in fact, the evidence accumulating in recent decades is that aging is not something that goes wrong, and the body is not trying to fix it. Aging is natural. It is the body shutting itself down, putting itself out of the way after it has done its job, finished reproduction.
What is Aging? Most Scientists Still Get it Wrong
http://joshmitteldor...l-get-it-wrong/
the continuation of the above Mitteldorf quote is this:
"How do we know that aging is an active process of self-destruction, and not just the body “wearing out”? There are a number of indications, becoming clearer all the time.
..."
But there is the another subtype of the PA theory, which states that aging is the consequence of the changes in the endogenous processes, governed by the genetic code, which becomes deregulated with age, and this causes the dysfunctions. The purposeless continuation of the developmental program, i.e. evolutionary it was not selected for or against. Note: I mean within the given species, because in family and genus it may have, like e.g. in the evolution of Homo sapiens, as its lifespan has doubled from its predecessors in just a course of a few million years, with relatively few genetical changes, around 3-5%, i.e. in about 1000-1500 genes.
A description of it is given, for instance, here, by Joao Pedro de Magalhaes:
http://www.senescenc...s_of_aging.html
"I should note that there are differences in interpretation of aging changes which influence the way different researchers interpret the essence of aging; as discussed elsewhere, some authors see aging as genetic in nature while others see it as a build-up of damage counteracted by genetically-regulated mechanisms."
http://www.senescenc...mmed_aging.html
"Programmed Theories of Aging
In addition to damage-based theories, a second class of theories of aging defends that aging is a genetically-determined, programmed process. In this essay, I present and review the most important concepts and theories in this context.
...
For decades the idea that aging is programmed has been debated, and it was given new impetus by the extraordinary discoveries in the genetics of aging. The observation that single genes can modulate longevity and, to some degree, regulate the process of aging in model systems supports the idea that aging is to some degree programmed. For example, in yeast, transient expression of a single transcription factor can rejuvenate cells and extend lifespan (Unal et al., 2011). Of course, the same may not hold true for more complex organisms, like vertebrates, and discussed below are some of the proposed models of aging based on the concept of programmed aging.
Though there have been arguments in favor of seeing aging as part of an altruistic predetermined plan that serves a purpose (Longo et al., 2005), the idea that aging evolved for a reason--also known as group selection--is largely out-of-favor in modern gerontology. As mentioned elsewhere, in the vast majority of species, aging does not appear to be programmed in the sense that it serves a purpose (Austad, 2004). Therefore, in this essay, I do not imply any evolutionary purpose for aging; by programmed I mean in the sense of following a predetermined set of instructions, like in the result of gene action.
...
Anyway, in the other topic of this subject (linked in post #6, http://www.longecity...ndpost&p=737649), I already wanted to suggest the creation at Longecity of a Frequently Asked Questions article, let's say:
Aging and Life extension FAQ,
that describes the definitions of the basic concepts connected to these. For without such definitions, reasoning and arguments cannot be built up properly, and because it seems there may be some misunderstandings in the definitions too between various people and groups.
I will probably post it in the Project Ideas section soon.