Every systems tends to preserve itself leaving out of consideration its parts or its sub-systems, this ever since the existence of the universe. It’s the main evolution rule, based on redundancy, resilience and selection.

«Redundancy» means excess, surplus: the number of parts of a system is higher than the minimum number of parts in order to allow the existence of the system. This involves a great number of parts or even all the parts being «expendable» in order to conserve the system.

«Resilience» means resistance: every system tends to keep its own structure (the relations between its parts) and to win the fluctuations taking place in it.

«Selection» means choice: the parts of a system to resist the most are those that adapt better to the system conservation.

Due to selection, the structure of the universe is hierarchical and made of two dyadic bivalent levels: the parts placed on a certain level represent themselves towards the parts on the higher level, while they represent the totality when facing the parts on the lower levels.

The end (death) of each part plays a functional role in the conservation of the species and the end (the disappearance) of every species is functional to the conservation of the environment, i.e. to the higher system of which the species is a sub-system.

Systems form themselves by chance, after a certain number of attempts.

Once they are formed, the necessity for conservation rises.

This is the reason why all the nature changes everything born as means in aims: every system is born as an (organizational) means for the evolution of its parts, then changes into aim and uses its parts as conservation units.

It seems an endless process. Even so, if it’s true that every event produces subsequent events, it’s also true that not all subsequent events are foreseeable: the system, even if finalist (tends to conserve itself) can’t, owing to its nature, dominate all the events rising from the same process.

So, it can happen that a part of a system or a sub-system of a system can win the resilience of the system and modify the structure of the same system. That happens when the complexity and therefore the intelligence of a part or a sub-system is higher than the one of the system it is part of.

It’s owing to this reason that life imposed itself: the first living cell had a complexity, therefore intelligence, higher than those of the system from which it draw origin.

That means that a part or a living species reaching a sufficient level of complexity and intelligence can, if it wants, interrupt the natural selection process and change the hierarchical structure in a conarchical one devoid of dyadic levels.

As life started using inert matter, the same way a kind of life complex and intelligent enough can use the whole universe, meaning it can avoid the natural rule asserted before time and space by modifying the same rule.

Obviously, unpredictability remains. It’s possible to fix the modification of the structure of the universe but it’s not possible to predict completely how the new structure will be.

The idea of cellular immortality rises in this context. Maybe the human being can become immortal and maybe he can determine the modification of the systemic structure of the whole universe but he can’t foresee all the effects that could stem. Not even through simulation, because the state variables of the system to be affected are many more in number than the human being is currently able to foresee.

So, the risk to attempt has to be accepted, gaining conscience that the only alternative is the certainness of the actual state, along with the consequent certainness of the end (death). This is the challenge: today humanity can try to trigger a new process through which each part can conserve and develop itself, or can keep conserving and developing itself through the end of each of its parts.

In the first case it’s all about keeping living, in the second to accept to live in order to die.

The idea of Kayamara, the defeat of death, rises from this dichotomy.

Science assures this aim is possible, also in a short time.

But to defeat death one has to create the conditions to allow the system to tolerate immortality. The aim of defeating death is not just a technical problem itself but the undertaking of responsibilities completely different than the current ones. A responsibility involving all human beings.

There will be the need for new relations and social, civil, politic, economic and moral behaviors, it will require more self-control, and also a new organization that will have to rise from the grassroots, from each one of us.

It’s not a matter of believing or not, hoping or not hoping, but to use our development level to transform ourselves to be able to be immortal.

It’s impossible? That’s not true. The whole nature shows us that together with the rule of competition selection rises from, also the one of cooperation exists, showing each time two or more parts concur together for the achievement of a common aim.

All it needs doing is to understand, be conscious of current reality and to be willing, carrying conviction that while cooperation today is aimed to conservation and development of the species, in the future it will have to be addressed to the conservation and development of each human being.

How is achieved a such revolutionary project

Are already known causes of aging and cell death.

Find out more