is aging genetically controlled.

Here is something I posted at teh IMDb in relation to a proposed
remake of the movie _Logan's Run_.
My general rule is to do things as close to the source material as
possible. But hey, I'm not making this movie, am I? So just for fun...

In the future, life seems to be a utopia: everybody has material
wealth in abundance, the work week is 24 hours, there are lots of fun
ways to spend that leisure time, and thanks to longevity treatments,
people remain young and vibrant to the age of 121... at which point
they are expected to die. No Carousel, no Renewal, they just step into
the Deep Sleep facility and are painlessly killed by the technicians
there.

The reasons are given as:
IT isn't natural to live longer than that. Before the longevity
treatments were invented, you could probably count on one hand the
number of people confirmed to have lived longer than 121, and
certainly you wouldn't have to resort to counting toes.
THE longevity treatment starts to wear off at that age, and people
start to age. Slowly at first, then gradually faster and faster, until
one is aging normally. At the age of 175 or so, one is the equivilent
of 60 and aging at the natural rate. Why go through all that? Isn't
121 years of youthful vitality enough, without having to drag through
80 or 100 years of aging, feebility, and eventual helplessness? And
where does it all end? In death. So you aren't even avoiding death,
just making it prolonged and miserable. See how good your Controller
is, to spare you all of that? Now step into the nice Deep Sleep booth.
Good boy.
BTW, there are Runners who claim the process could be slowed (though
not stopped) by additional treatments, but see the next reason for why
that would not be done.
POPULATION is tightly controlled, and in order for new children to be
born, the oldsters have to step aside. Otherwise the society will
become stagnant (it already is, but hey). Sure, the oldsters would
eventually get old and die anyway, but to have "new blood" as often as
the Controller has determined is optimal, that's too long to wait.
BESIDES, it's expensive to take care of old people. The work week
would probably have to be extended from 24 hours (three days of eight
hours each) to 28 hours (an extra half day!).

Now we have a story which isn't about the value of youth, or the value
of age. We don't, in a real sense, any longer have _Logan's Run_. We
have now a story about whether or not people have the right to use
technology to enjoy "unnatural" benifits, whether or not government
has the right to tell its citizens when to die, and whether or not
society has an obligation towards those "selfish" enough to grow old.

These are complex enough issues that it isn't just a case of liberals
support one side and conservatives support the other. For instance: it
isn't very conservative to give the government the power to tell
healthy people to die "for the good of society", but it also isn't
conservative to tell the whole society that they have to work harder
to support non-working oldsters.

All that said, if they are going to call this movie _Logan's Run_,
then it aught to be _Logan's Run_, and not what I have described
above. The above might make a good movie, but don't call it _Logan's Run_.

Let's take our clothes off before they freeze!
- Logan 5