It's easy to play what-if, but the onus is on the player to provide plentiful evidence to support their proposition. From a practical perspective, the idea that all the different branches of life (which parted ways more than 1.5 billion years ago and have been evolving separately ever since) suddenly all decided to invent senescence (for amusement?) quite recently defies all logic. How could this synchronized mass death-wish have arisen? By what mechanism could it have propagated? The fact that such basic questions reveal the folly of the argument made in the article is sufficient for us to regard it as just another crank theory. Only with overwhelming evidence in support would we be required to re-evaluate the most successful theory of speciation thus far developed. As Truzzi said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Empty speculation is utterly insufficient.