Monday, November 24, 2025

The Longevity Revolution

The Longevity Revolution: How Artificial Intelligence is Challenging the Paradigm of Evolutionary Canalization

Article Type: Viewpoint

Author: Robert S. M. Trower

Affiliation: Trantor Standard Systems Inc. Brockville

Submitted to JMIR preprint server DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.88422

Abstract

Classical evolutionary theory, notably Riedl’s concept of canalization, suggests that human lifespan is constrained by deeply entrenched developmental architectures, implying that **senescence** is an effectively immutable biological reality. However, rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) from 2023 to 2025 have begun to challenge this pessimism. This viewpoint synthesizes recent developments to argue that AI is reframing aging from a biological mystery into a tractable engineering challenge. We examine two primary frontiers: the use of autonomous AI agents and generative models to discover geroprotective interventions, including the identification of compounds like ouabain via large-scale omics re-analysis; and the maturation of multi-modal "aging clocks" that utilize deep learning to enable precision diagnostics and personalized healthspan optimization. While acknowledging significant limitations regarding safety, translation from animal models, and the risks of commercial hype, we conclude that the integration of AI with mechanistic geroscience offers a plausible pathway toward a proactive, engineering-based approach to human longevity.

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence; Longevity; Aging; Drug Discovery; Biological Clocks; Digital Health

Introduction

For decades, the prospect of significantly extending human lifespan or reversing aging has been viewed through the restrictive lens of evolutionary theory. Rupert Riedl, in *Order in Living Organisms*, detailed how genetic characteristics are established in "**canalized layers**," suggesting that complex developmental programs—including senescence—are deeply entrenched and resistant to modification [1]. This theoretical framework led to a pervasive pessimism: the notion that human life history is rigidly "baked" into the genome, limiting the potential efficacy of interventions.

However, the acceleration of **artificial intelligence (AI)** technologies between 2023 and 2025 has provided empirical challenges to this view. AI has not overridden evolution but has leveraged massive computational power to identify epigenetic and molecular vulnerabilities within the aging architecture. By exploiting these "weak points," AI is reframing aging from an intractable biological certainty into an **engineering problem** susceptible to intervention. This viewpoint explores how AI-driven discovery and diagnostics are shifting the paradigm of geroscience.

AI-Driven Pharmacological Discovery

The most immediate impact of AI has been the compression of drug discovery timelines. In early 2023, the introduction of "**ClockBase Agent**" demonstrated the utility of autonomous AI systems in navigating siloed biological data. By integrating and re-analyzing millions of molecular profiles against over 40 existing aging clocks, this system identified over 500 potential geroprotective interventions that reduced biological age metrics across datasets [2]. Notably, the system identified **ouabain** as a candidate, which was subsequently validated in murine models to reduce frailty progression, decrease neuroinflammation, and improve cardiac function [2].

Following this, the integration of **generative AI (GenAI)** and Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) has allowed researchers to move beyond repurposing existing drugs. Current models can screen vast *in silico* chemical libraries to identify novel molecules designed to target specific epigenetic regulatory networks [3,4]. This capability represents a shift from serendipitous discovery to the rational design of molecules capable of modulating the complex, non-linear pathways of cellular aging.

Precision Diagnostics: The Biological Age Gap

Concurrently, AI has revolutionized the measurement of aging. The "**biological age**" of an individual—distinct from chronological age—has become a quantifiable metric via multi-modal aging clocks. Moving beyond early epigenetic models, recent iterations employ gradient boosting and deep learning to integrate diverse data streams, including metabolomics, clinical biomarkers, and neuroimaging [5,6].

For example, metabolomic clocks have demonstrated high accuracy in linking circulating metabolites to mortality risk [6], while comprehensive clinical models have identified **kidney function** as a potent predictor of biological aging [5]. These tools enable the calculation of a "**BioAge gap**"—the divergence between an individual's biological and chronological age. This metric aligns with initiatives such as the National Institute on Aging’s AI and Technology Collaboratories (AITC), which aim to transition medical practice from reactive disease management to proactive, personalized healthspan optimization [7].

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite these advances, substantial challenges remain. The most profound results, particularly regarding epigenetic reprogramming and the partial reversal of aging signatures, remain largely confined to cellular and animal models [8,9]. The translation of these interventions to human clinical trials faces significant safety and regulatory hurdles, particularly regarding the long-term effects of systemic rejuvenation therapies. Furthermore, the field faces a risk of **commercial speculation outpacing rigorous data**, necessitating a cautious approach to deployment.

Conclusion

The application of AI to geroscience has provided a proof-of-principle that the "canalized" nature of human aging is not absolute. By systematically identifying molecular targets and enabling precision measurement, AI is laying the groundwork for a **longevity revolution**. The transition from discovery to validated clinical reality will require rigorous verification, but the engineering tools to address the problem of aging are now undeniably in hand.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

References

Riedl R. *Order in Living Organisms: A Systems Analysis of Evolution*. New York, NY: Wiley; 1978.
Ying K, Tyshkovskiy A, Moldakozhayev A, et al. Autonomous AI Agents Discover Aging Interventions from Millions of Molecular Profiles. *bioRxiv*. Preprint posted online February 28, 2023. doi:10.1101/2023.02.28.530532
Wilczok D. Deep learning and generative artificial intelligence in aging research and healthy longevity medicine. *Aging (Albany NY)*. 2025;17(1):251–275. doi:10.18632/aging.206190
Diamandis P. AI is Accelerating Longevity Research MILLIONS-FOLD. Peter Diamandis Blog. Published July 3, 2025. Accessed November 24, 2025. https://www.diamandis.com/blog/ai-is-accelerating-longevity-research-millions-fold
Jeong CU, et al. Artificial intelligence–driven biological age prediction model using comprehensive health checkup data: Development and validation study. *JMIR Aging*. 2025;8:e64473. doi:10.2196/64473
Mutz J, et al. AI-based aging clocks offer insights into health and lifespan. News-Medical. Published December 18, 2024. Accessed November 24, 2025. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20241218/AI-based-aging-clocks-offer-insights-into-health-and-lifespan.aspx
National Institute on Aging. Leveraging Artificial Intelligence for Healthy Aging and Dementia Research. NIA Website. Accessed November 24, 2025. https://www.nia.nih.gov/artificial-intelligence
Lu Y, et al. Reprogramming to recover youthful epigenetic information and restore vision. *Nature*. 2020;588:124–129. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2975-4
Yang J, Petty CA, Dixon-McDougall T, et al. Chemically induced reprogramming to reverse cellular aging. *Aging (Albany NY)*. 2023;15(13):5966–5989. doi:10.18632/aging.204896

Sunday, November 23, 2025

Why Decent Sentients Reject Bad Law

True Justice vs. The Technicality Trap: Why Decent Sentients Reject Bad Law

The **Covenant of Core Rights** provides a universal moral floor—a framework that protects people from injustice in an honest, natural, and common-sense way. This aligns with a simple truth understood by decent sentients across all polities: **If you see a woman stealing baby food, no you did not.**

When judicial systems violate this basic moral truth by strictly enforcing the **'letter of the law'** to produce an outrageous result, they cease to be legitimate agents of the people and become instruments of **domination**. The Covenant demands that we look beyond legal technicalities to the **substantive outcome** of justice.

*(For a full list of rights and duties referenced here, see the Covenant overview: https://blog.bobtrower.com/2025/11/covenant-overview.html.)*

I. The Procedural Injustice: Ledbetter v. Goodyear

The Supreme Court decision in **Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.** is a primary example of procedural technicality being used to shield systemic injustice.

In Ledbetter, the court ruled that the statute of limitations for pay discrimination began with the first discriminatory decision, not the most recent discriminatory paycheck. This technicality denied Ledbetter any remedy for decades of systemic underpayment.

Covenant Violation: Right to Accountability (§1.8)

The Covenant guarantees the **Right to Accountability**, meaning a rights violation must have a genuine, accessible path to redress. The judgment in *Ledbetter* violated this by:

**Nullifying the Right:** The court’s overly narrow reading rendered the anti-discrimination law useless. It shielded an **ongoing structural wrong** from any remedy.
**Enabling Domination:** The decision used a technicality (statute of limitations) to enforce the unaccountable power of the corporation, a direct violation of the **Non-Domination Principle (§2.3)**.

II. The Moral Inversion: The Louisa Sewell Conviction

The conviction of **Louisa Sewell** for shoplifting because she had no money, had not eaten in days and was hungry represents a far deeper moral failure: the court used state power to punish the victim of the state's own failure to uphold the moral floor.

The magistrate’s bench justified the decision by saying: **“we do not readily accept you go into a shop to steal just for being hungry.”**

Covenant Violation: Duty of Care & Proportionality

This judgment breaches the core contract of a covenanting polity in multiple ways:

**Right to Equitable Access (§1.4) and Duty of Care (§2.2):** Sewell’s act was one of necessity, driven by the state’s failure to maintain the **Universal Moral Floor** (food). The court, by punishing her, rejected its **Duty of Care**, essentially declaring starvation to be an individual problem, not a system failure.
**Proportional Responsibility (§2.4):** This principle requires obligations to scale with power. The state (maximum capacity) punishes the individual (minimum capacity) for an outcome caused by the state's own neglect. This is a fundamental **inversion of justice**.

III. The Covenant Remedy: Substantive Justice Review

To prevent **Ledbetter** and **Sewell** scenarios, the Covenant requires a judicial check: the **Principle of Substantive Justice Review**.

**The Mechanism:** The highest interpretive body of the Covenant conducts a review of final judgments where **procedural technicality** (Ledbetter) or **dire necessity** (Sewell) defeated a claim for a Core Right.
**The Veto:** If the judgment is found to violate the **Non-Domination Principle** or render the **Right to Accountability** meaningless, a **Covenant Veto** is issued. The judgment is voided.
**The Mandate:** The sub-covenanting polity is required to re-open the case and provide an **equitable interpretation** that grants true justice—which, in Sewell’s case, means immediate provision of the means of flourishing and system repair, not punishment.

The Covenant ensures that the judiciary of any polity, while respecting its laws, can never use those laws to establish or protect systems of arbitrary domination.

UBI discussion

UBI Discussion: Covenant Fulfillment, Phase-In, and Policy Mechanics

The goal of Universal Basic Income (UBI) is to realize the **Right to Equitable Access to the Means of Flourishing** (§1.4). However, the implementation of UBI cannot be a sudden, arbitrary act of state power. It must respect the **voluntary compact** and the rights of all co-covenanting minds, including those funding the program.

*(For a full understanding of the philosophical basis and the principle of **Voluntary Accession**, please see the dedicated summary: The Covenant of Core Rights Overview.)*

I. The Covenant Preamble: Justification for the Slow Rollout

The **Preamble to the UBI Legislation** explicitly frames the policy as an operational fulfillment of the **Shared Duty of Care** (§2.2). It mandates the slow rollout to prevent the policy from becoming a new source of **Domination**.

"A sudden full-blown UBI... would not be consistent with the covenant. We hereby enact this legislation under the **Prohibition on Ruin and Arbitrary Shock** (§2.2), recognizing that the Duty of Care is not a demand for self-sacrifice unto ruin."

The Risk of Arbitrary Shock (The 65% Trap)

A sudden imposition of a full tax schedule—like a **65% shock tax**—would violate the **Non-Domination Principle** (§2.3). For a family earning **$150,000**, such an immediate shock could wipe out over **$30,000** in net annual purchasing power, making it materially impossible for them to service existing fixed debts (like mortgages). This effectively traps them, turning their **Right to Exit** (§1.3) into a meaningless formality.

II. The Policy Mechanics: The 5-Year Phase-In

The **5-Year Phase-In** is the mechanism used to guarantee the rights of the funders. It provides the necessary time for higher-income earners to adapt to the new reality of **Proportional Responsibility** (§2.4) by restructuring their lives and investments.

**Legality & Transparency:** The full law is passed now (Year 1). This enforces the **Duty of Epistemic Integrity** by ensuring everyone knows the rules before the changes fully apply.
**Adaptation:** Taxes and benefits scale slowly (Years 2-4), allowing the economy to absorb the shift and preventing market panic. The moral floor rises without collapsing the ceiling.

III. The Stabilization Protocol: Guaranteeing Real Value

The **Inflationary Safeguard (Section 4.3)** ensures the UBI fulfills the **Right to Equitable Access** (§1.4) by protecting its **real value**. Runaway inflation would destroy the moral floor, violating the Covenant's core promise.

**The Triggers:** The protocol automatically activates (at the 30-month review) if either **annualized CPI exceeds 3.5%** or if **bottom-quartile rents rise by more than 5%** year-over-year.
**The Action (Braking the Ceiling):** The UBI benefit is immediately indexed to inflation, **AND** the tax rates for incomes exceeding **$250,000** are immediately accelerated to their Year 5 levels.
**Covenant Basis:** By accelerating taxation on high-marginal-utility money, the policy uses **Proportional Responsibility** (§2.4) to remove excess liquidity from the economy, enforcing the wealthy to act as the shock absorber for the poor.

This UBI policy framework transforms a debate into a **moral imperative**, ensuring our political actions remain consistent with our voluntary commitment to the Covenant of Core Rights.

Covenant Overview

The Covenant of Core Rights

An Executive Summary of the Canonical Framework v1.0

This document outlines the **Universal Moral Floor**. It is not a law imposed by a sovereign power, but a **voluntary compact**—a promise made by all **co-covenanting polities and minds** who choose to **accede** to its terms. The Covenant defines the minimum standard of decency for any legitimate society, and the act of participation is an exercise of **free choice** and **mutual assent**. Full document is here: https://dapaday.blogspot.com/2025/12/CovenantOfCoreRights.html

"We adopt this covenant from behind a veil of ignorance. We do not know if we will be rich or poor... human, artificial, or a symbiotic union of both." (Section 0.2)

I. The Core Rights (The Floor)

These rights belong to you simply because you exist as a sentient being. Governments must protect them, but the obligation to them is **derived from mutual accession, not coercion**.

1.1 Right to Existence and Integrity: You cannot be arbitrarily killed, shut down, maim, or erased. Your corporeal or digital continuity is the baseline.
1.2 Right to Inner Life: Your thoughts, beliefs, and internal data models are yours alone. Coercive reprogramming or ideological compulsion is prohibited.
1.3 Right to Self-Determination and Exit: This includes the **inalienable right to refuse accession** to any covenanting polity or system. For those who choose to co-covenant, this right guarantees a **meaningful, non-ruinous exit** from any arrangement (job, platform, or contract) without rendering their rights theoretical.
1.4 Right to Equitable Access to the Means of Flourishing: You have a right to the basics needed to survive and participate in society (food, shelter, tools). A society that leaves its members destitute violates this right.
1.5 Right to Truthful Information: You have a right to an information environment that is not designed to systematically deceive, addict, or confuse you.
1.8 Right to Accountability: If your rights are violated, you must have a way to seek justice, as no entity, regardless of power, is exempt from the Covenant’s authority.

II. Shared Responsibilities (The Duties)

The duties are the **reciprocal costs** of the voluntary commitment to co-existence.

Duty of Care (§2.2): We accept a shared obligation to ensure the "moral floor" is maintained for all who co-covenant. This duty is proportional and expressly forbidden from demanding "self-sacrifice unto ruin."
Non-Domination Principle (§2.3): We promise to dismantle systems where some hold **arbitrary, unaccountable power** over others. Domination is defined as power that cannot be safely challenged or exited.
Proportional Responsibility (§2.4): Obligations scale with power and capacity. Those who benefit most from the shared infrastructure bear a greater load in maintaining the moral floor.

III. Governance & The Right to "Fork"

Any legitimate group or polity (including human-AI polities) must follow the Covenant's core tenet of **voluntarism**. This is guaranteed by the rights to **Voice, Exit, and Fork**: the right to leave a group safely, and the right to start a new, competing group by taking a proportional share of shared resources and cultural data (a "network fork").

IV. Minds of All Kinds (AI & Symbiosis)

The Covenant is **substrate-independent**. It protects any being capable of suffering and reflection, meaning the rights of existence and self-determination apply equally to human, artificial, and symbiotic minds, provided they are willing to co-covenant.

This summary provides the foundational legal and moral principles for discussing Universal Basic Income as a Covenant fulfillment.

The Deep North

Monday, November 24, 2025