The Instigator
famer
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
CrazyTool
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Anti-aging drugs would not be beneficial to society

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
famer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,139 times Debate No: 19977
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

famer

Pro

I (pro) will be arguing that anti-aging drugs would NOT benefit society while (con) will argue that anti-aging drugs would benefit society.

Definition:
Anti-aging drug: A drug that will slow down the aging process, therefore increasing our life expectancy to about 150.
CrazyTool

Con

Alright, I can work with this, I will be arguing for Anti-Aging drugs being beneficial to society.
Debate Round No. 1
famer

Pro

I would firstly like to thank my opponent CrazyTool for accepting my challenge for this interesting debate.

When it comes to discussing this matter on anti-aging drugs, we must first look at its future effects on our world. Some of the major things that would occur include:

1.New laws
2.Overpopulation
3.Harder job opportunities (as well when we will enter retirement)
4.Benefit only the rich which will further the gap between rich and poor even more
5.Make it harder for us to take care of our earth
6.It is a powerful drug, expect consequences!

NEW LAWS

In my opinion, this drug will implement immediate changes to our laws. For example, a much older age limit for drinking, smoking, learning how to drive and other age-related laws. And, if this drug was to be legal only to people over a certain age (say, about 18-20), what's going to stop parents from giving their children this drug? It is almost impossible for us to find out whether children are taking it. I'd say most parents would rather pass away before their children.
If new laws do take place, what will happen to some of those people who will then be "disobeying the law?" For example, if the law changed so that you can only learn how to drive or drive once you are 30 because you will not be responsible enough for your own safety, what will happen to those people who are under 30 with a driving license? Teenagers, uni students and those who are in their late 20s would think of this new law as "unfair" as they have spent time and money to learn how to drive and also acquire the license itself.

OVERPOPULATION

The biggest issue is overpopulation. Men and women would still be fit enough to have more children if they want to even when they are about 70 or 80 years old which would lead to a much larger population within just a decade or two. Families could have up to 6 or 7 generations living at one time (which I find rather creepy).
If we slow down our bodies from aging, our bodies will also be able to reproduce for more years of our life. We will be physically fit enough to have more babies if we choose to. This is because we are keeping menopause further away from us.

HARDER JOB OPPOTUNITIES

Secondly, a much longer life (more than double our current expected lifespan of 70) would also mean a much later retirement. This makes harder work opportunities for younger people who are looking for jobs (e.g. uni graduates, high school dropouts, tafe students etc.) as we would need more money to support ourselves and also a family for those who are married.

This would lead to a brand new society that I think we will not be able to adapt to. The bigger the population as a whole, the more families must be raised. The longer people must work, the harder it will be for young people to find new jobs to start raising their own family. If it becomes harder for us to raise our families because of what this drug is going to do, this drug has created a big disadvantage for our world.

BENEFIT ONLY THE RICH

This is also an opinion based argument. But, I think such a drug is more than likely to cost quite a lot of money which will then leave the poorer areas such as Africa without such possibilities for extending their already short lifespans. It will further the gap between rich countries from poor countries even more.

If, for some reason, the drug is a cheap and therefore a very affordable drug (or even free), it will therefore lead to a much higher population growth. That, in turn, will also increase the risk polluting our earth which will be explained in my next argument. Another problem with this drug being affordable is how we are going to reward the scientists that created this drug for us to use? Some research says that this drug will be available in the next 5-10 years. The scientists involved with creating such a drug will need to be rewarded for their efforts in creating such an evolutionary drug.

DAMAGE OUR EARTH

A bigger population is likely to lead to a bigger risk of polluting our earth. The more people living, the more mouths must be fed to our growing population. The more mouths to be fed, the more we'll benefit from technology. The more we use technology, the more the earth's atmosphere will be polluted from bad substances such as methane gas, carbon dioxide, CFCs etc. It is an ongoing chain reaction that leads to major disadvantages, not advantages.

CONSEQUENCES

Lastly, it is in my opinion that if such a powerful drug were to come into existence, it will have severe consequence to our bodies if we take it often. Our bodies will become reliant on the drug and we will start craving on the substances within the drug just for the sakes of surviving longer. A simple comparison can be made to the prescription only drug, Lamasil. It will help remove fungus from infected areas (such as finger nails and toe nails), but will, in turn, weaken the taker's liver as a result from taking it. This is quite an extreme example, but it shows us what such an evolutionary drug COULD do once it is out to the market.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the anti-aging drug WILL NOT benefit our improving society. Our world will suffer both an immense and immediate overpopulation which will also lead to other disadvantages. There will also be an immediate difference to people's job opportunities and job periods. It will further the gap between poorer countries from richer countries even more. The drug will make it harder for us to look after our dear planet earth and lastly, we will experience bodily consequences in the long run when we take this drug. This is my argument and why I think anti-aging drugs would not be beneficial to society as the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages. Thank you for reading my debate.

And, to you, CrazyTool…
CrazyTool

Con

Firstly, allow me to apologise for this argument being so late, it's that time of the year where things are busy, so I am sorry about that but I will now continue using the format you have used.

1: New laws
2: Overpopulation
3: Harder job opportunities
4: Economic divide
5: Environmental factors
6: Conclusions
7: References

NEW LAWS

With regards to laws, I agree, there will need to be new laws and some changes to existing ones but to believe that laws relating to driving will go up or use of legal substances is unlikely, as those rise with new facts not with rising ages. In 2007, British MPs said the driving age should be raises to 18 but this was as a result of factors other than living longer [1] and since 1960, natural life expectancy in the UK has risen by about 9 years [2] which has had no impact on changes to anything other than pensions.

Any new law would most likely be related to the drug itself and the usage of it and possibly how it would be given. Chances are, to avoid misuse of the drug, it would be clinic only administered, this would prevent adults from giving it to their children, but this is speculation. As for those who would be affected by changes to age laws, that has happened in the past, in 2007 tobacco in the UK was raised from 16 to 18 [3], 16/17 year olds might not have liked the change but it happened with little consequences and for those who have gotten a licence and no longer meet the age would most likely be allowed to keep driving.

OVERPOPULATION

Overpopulation is a serious issue and does need to be looked at, but you have to take into account that the countries that will have the drug available to them are going to be the developed states, which have a lower growth rate in comparison to the undeveloped countries and some developed countries, such as the USA and Russia, have a lot of space available for more people, [4] while it could be argued that those might not be habitable, if we speculate that such drugs with vast age increasing capabilities can be made, then we can speculation that we would be able to use land that is currently considered inhabitable.

Not to mention that China currently has a declining population because of their one child policy, [5] so this may help out China in that way by allowing families to live longer and have children later. Let's not forget that having a child is something that is a big decision to make and can take some couples a long time, so raising the living age would give them longer to think about it.

HARDER JOB OPPOTUNITIES

This is already a problem for unskilled workers as we develop in technology, [6] so the only solution to this problem would be for businesses to evolve and promote other forms of jobs, with the age of the internet and social networking, it can be assumed that unskilled workers will be going at the lower end of IT jobs and others that revolve around that area rather than production and sales.

While you speculate that it will lead to a new society, that is certain but you say that you don't think we will be able to adapt, however I disagree. If you look at the past in comparison, you will see that there have been massive changes, if you consider that cancer treatment can allow someone to live where they would once have died and we have adapted to this.

You have to remember that it's only the modern times where women have been allowed and given a fair chance at many jobs [7] and while society hasn't fully adapted to this, we have come a long way and the same would happen with older people working.

ECONOMIC DIVIDE

This would all depend on how the drug is used in practice and under what circumstances however there is no doubt that it would be expensive but you state that Africa wouldn't have access to it, if global powers and charities think that it will help prevent overpopulation in Africa, then that's how it will be made available to them. HIV/AIDS drugs are expensive [8] and yet these are provided to poor countries that can't afford them, we know this, so if there is a need for them, that is how they will be delivered.

If we go back to speculation, let's say you own a steel production factory, where skilled labour is hard to find, an investment in this drug for your employees might be worth it to give them longer to work and train up new staff, that employee who trained up staff might then get a bonus, which benefits them as a working class individual.

ENVIROMENTAL FACTORS

No doubt more people will result in a greater risk but the keyword there is risk, you are making an assumption that there will be no/little increase or development in renewable energy sources. As for CFCs, they have been on the way out for a while now [9] so are going to have little impact on a rising population due to age increasing drugs.

There is also the matter of recycling, in the UK there is a rising amount of household waste being recycled and in the US, 32% of waste is currently recycled, [10] there have also been advancements in packaging as well, where companies will use less packaging and use biodegradable plastics, which reduces the amount of materials used.

CONCLUSIONS

Much of this round has seemed to reflect statements which could easily be attributed to the natural rise in human life expectancy and not specifically to age enhancing drugs. While the law specifically on the drug is an important one and the benefit, many of the other points made can be argued as general points to increasing life expectancy.

With regards to such a drug, yes there would need to be laws and there would need to be guidelines as to how it would be used and who it should benefit. I don't believe it should be made readily available to anyone and its usage should be justified, such as the example above of keeping on a skilled worker to train others or to people who have lost parts of their life through comas or other incidents, regulation would be essential.

REFERENCES

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[2] http://www.google.co.uk...
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[4] http://www.worldatlas.com...
[5] http://articles.businessinsider.com...
[6] http://news.yahoo.com...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://aids.about.com...
[9] http://www.epa.gov...
[10] http://www.benefits-of-recycling.com...
Debate Round No. 2
famer

Pro

Thank you CrazyTool once again for posting an interesting argument for this debate. I'd also like to apologise for my argument being slightly late as well.

Let me continue with the format that you have edited from mine:
1.New laws
2.Overpopulation
3.Harder job opportunities
4.Economic divied
5.Environmental factors
6.Conclusions
7.References

NEW LAWS

With regards to your doubt that the driving age will go up, please refer to my definition. I stated that an anti-aging drug will make you GROW SLOWER. That means we will mature slower, develop better habits and responsibilities much later in life. Also, note that maturing children are not fully aware of what it means to drive a car, for example, what it is like to crash or be crashed into by a car. Right now, I am 14 years old, and with the influence of anti-aging drugs, I would have both the physical, and more importantly, mental build of a six of seven years old child. I can recall the times where I thought I could not be harmed by a speeding car (and no, I was not hallucinating). We cannot allow 16 years old (current mental build of an 8 years old child) with the influence of the drug, learn how to drive.

You have also stated in your argument that the life expectancy in the UK has risen by about 9 years. This, however, is only a very minute margin compared to an extra 80 years worth of life.

Referring back to the part about the effects of rapid law changes related to the drug, you said that it may be a clinic only administered drug. There may be certain loopholes for the children desperate enough to have a shot of the drug. For example, they can wear and wear a moustache and say their parent's name under the Medicare card.

Also coming back to what you said about letting those people already with a license to keep on driving, some people under the age limit may (with enough skills), forge a driver's license and then keep on driving. Other cases may include people who are in the middle of learning how to drive. Should they be put under charges because they do not possess a legitimate driver's license?

OVERPOPULATION

True, some areas we call uninhabitable right now may become an inhabitable piece of land when space is needed for the rising population. This however will not benefit a large proportion of people. For example, what kind of "uninhabitable" lands are you referring to? We shouldn't clear up rivers and lakes to make it an inhabitable piece of land. Other areas are simply impossible to make inhabitable (such as Antarctica).

When you talked about the drug only becoming available to the developed states, I don't quite agree with you. The world right now is changing rapidly. What we see right now, we won't be seeing in the next decade or so. China, for example, is the most populated country, but the nation itself is rapidly improving.

There have also been certain exceptions to China's one-child policy (for Shanghai) [1] which states that married couples that are both the only child of their parents to have children if they are Han Chinese. Also, China's one child policy has been made because they are TRYING to decline the population. The population in China has still been rising and hasn't gone down at all [2].

Some of the most highly developed countries (such as America and Australia) might not be at the top in the near future, and opportunities for other countries will appear.

Having a child is definitely a big decision to make, but the drug itself would give the couples double the time opportunity to expand their family if they choose to. Remember, the drug makes you grow slower (half our current natural speed).

HARDER JOB OPPORTUNITIES

I agree, in the future, our world with the internet and social networking, other forms of jobs will come into existence, but there is a limit to the amount of jobs that can exist at one time. Also, the start of a new business based on a completely new job to society will require tremendous efforts and skills. The chances of success for this type of thing happening are also fairly low.

You mentioned from your example that we have adapted cancer treatment that has then saved multiple lives from the past. This, however, is irrelevant to "harder job opportunities".

I said, in my previous argument that we would fail to adapt to such a new society. There is also the fact that such a drug would cause an immediate change to society, THAT being why we would not be able to adapt. The society would change too rapidly for us humans to adapt to and cope with. We would be unsure as whether we should work for longer, start working again to support our children who have the opportunities for such a drug etc.

ECONOMIC DIVIDE

As mentioned by both of us, the drug is likely to be expensive, but the fact that global powers and charities will help Africa have access to it, I doubt (Perhaps just some parts of Africa, but not all). The population of Africa as a whole is about 984 million people [3]. Helping that many people have access to the drug is simply too difficult even with help from other developed nations.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

You stated that I was making an assumption that there will only be a RISK to the environment. That is true, but if it is a risk with such a big impact to our world, it is worth worrying about. Humans have only survived on the earth for about 2 millions years and have inflicted much damage to the atmosphere since the birth of gas-emitting technology (cars, for example). The earth itself is yet to live for at least four or so billion years [4]+[5].

The good thing is that recycling does happen, but there are also multiple non-recyclable wastes that we buy from our grocery stores [6]. Does this cover the remaining 68% of wastes that are not recycled? You mentioned that only 32% of wastes in the UK are being recycled.

I would also like to point out that the amount of carbon emissions in Australia has been so overwhelming that it has caused our government to issue out a new law that involves the "carbon tax" [7]. This means some companies will also be taxed on the amount of carbon dioxide they release to the atmosphere.

CONCLUSION:

It is still, in my opinion, a drug that will be disadvantageous to our developing society. This drug will create an immense increase to our already populated earth in a very short period of time. Although new jobs may come into existence, job opportunities will still become harder for the younger people and future generations. It will create a bigger gap between the rich from the poor and lastly, our earth will be harmed from the technology we humans will be using to help our growing population.

REFERENCES:

1.http://ilookchina.net...
2.http://www.google.com.au...
3.http://en.wikipedia.org...
4.http://wiki.answers.com...
5.http://www.universetoday.com...
6.http://www3.jkl.fi...
7.http://www.aph.gov.au...

And, to you, CrazyTool...
CrazyTool

Con

1.New laws
2.Overpopulation
3.Harder job opportunities
4.Economic divied
5.Environmental factors
6.Conclusions
7.References

NEW LAWS

You have speculated far too much here, I would like to ask you to provide some evidence that it will cause you to mature slower. From what I understand of this, the aging would be related to the cells and how they react to damage, younger cells are better able to repair genetic defects [1] and therefore reduce the risk of cancer related to age [2] which happens when cells become old and don't repair correctly.

With regards to the clinic, this is a ludicrous statement that isn't backed up by any form of fact, a child can't just walk in with a moustache and expect to receive the drug, for one, females wouldn't be exempt from this and for another thing, it would be a referral from a GP or other medical professional if it was administered by a clinic.

Driving wise, there are plenty of ways around this and it isn't difficult for a country to manage, if you can prove you have been learning to drive, you would be unaffected by the change. It would be a similar principle to when contracts change, if you've already signed it before the change, you are unaffected by the change.

OVERPOPULATION

You say it's impossible to live in Antarctica, however you are wrong, there are scientists and other people who live there [3] mostly for work but it shows that people can live there and do, so even places like that can't be ruled out.

There is also Chernobyl, which is still effected by radiation but as it dissipates, the risk will become less and therefore making it habitable again, it once was home to about 14,000 people but now only 500 [4], so there is plenty of room when things clear up.

China is a developing state, so it won't be long till it is a developed state, this point is irrelevant.
As for Chinas population, yes it is high but what you have failed to look at is its population growth rate, which has declined [5], there are many factors which could contribute to a countries population, such as immigration.

HARDER JOB OPPORTUNITIES

There is no limit on social networking jobs, even small paid jobs, there are companies that will hire people as paid volunteers, such as ChaCha, which pays people to provide answers for its texting service. But jobs will come up in these areas and when times are good, there are investors for new ideas as well as investment in housing. In recent time, after the internet took off, we had the dot-com bubble, which eventually burst but this was based on new technology and advancements, the same cycle will continue.

As for cancer treatment, I am interested to know as to why you dismiss it without reason, you are aware that because of advancements in cancer treatments, you have more people living and living longer, this adds to the number of people looking for a job and that's how it fits in with job opportunities, advances in healthcare will increase the number of people living as well.

Regarding adaptability, I gave some thoughts on how we would adapt in my previous argument, however you haven't provided anything to say we wouldn't adapt. You seem to fail to understand that businesses are always operating at a risk of some form or other, anti-ageing drugs would fall under political risks [6] and it's something businesses would plan for if it ever happened.

ECONOMIC DIVIDE

You missed my point here, Africa has a high population due to its poor conditions which lead to early deaths, the same thing happened in developed countries when there were poor conditions and lower life expectancy but as they developed, the lower the need to have large families, there is already a decline in some African countries in the amount of children they have [7], anti-aging drugs could speed the natural process up and reduce global population.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

I never said it wasn't worth worrying about, I believe I gave examples of where work is being done already, such as governments switching to renewable along with research and advancements in carbon capture.

With regards to recycling, I said 32% of household waste in the US, not the UK, to quote myself; "...and in the US, 32% of waste is currently recycled...", now on the link for wastes, there are things there that are bio-degradable, such as clothes, these will have no effect on the environment, well actually nothing on that list will as it states that "Non-recyclable waste will end up at the dumping ground to be buried." [8], to cause harm and toxins to be released, it would be burnt but that isn't what they are doing.

As for a "carbon tax", that's fine, that's just proving my point that governments are doing something about the environment and that an increase in population isn't going to do an increased amount of damage.

CONCLUSION

And here lays the problem with much of your argument, it's mostly opinion and speculation but I am glad you have done a bit of research this time around, although I would recommend avoiding Wikipedia and WikiAnswers as sources.

Nothing had advanced much in terms of this debate due to the lack of supporting evidence on your side for anti-aging drugs causing slower maturity or why humans won't adapt.

As for the points on the economic divide, I haven't seen anything supporting that claim either, if the drug is seen as essential to a country, they will subsidise it if they have that form of health care system, which means both rich and poor will have access.

REFERENCES

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[2] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...
[3] http://www.antarctica.ac.uk...
[4] http://www.economist.com...
[5] http://www.google.com.au...
[6] http://www.businesslink.gov.uk...
[7] http://www.economist.com...
[8] http://www3.jkl.fi...
Debate Round No. 3
famer

Pro

Thank you CrazyTool for posting your argument.

1.New laws
2.Overpopulation
3.Harder job opportunities
4.Economic divide
5.Environmental factors
6.Conclusions
7.References

NEW LAWS

I fear for you CrazyTool that evidence is not required in this context. As you would know, the word mature means [1]: "complete in natural growth or development" and according to my definition of "anti-aging drugs" I stated that it is: "A drug that will slow down the aging process, therefore increasing our life expectancy to about 150". The site thesaurus.com says that aging and growing are synonyms [2].

If people already with a driver's license are exempt from the new law, what would happen to those who are one or two years under the age for learning how to drive? They have a right to learn how to drive when they are 16 years old and would therefore call it "unfair" if they need to wait for another decade and a half just to learn how to drive. The inconvenience it would cause for them is outrageous.

OVERPOPULATION

True, I made a mistake when I said that it is "impossible" to live in Antarctica, but I am doubtful that we would actually be able to "live" there. But, as you have mentioned yourself, the people who have lived on Antarctica are scientists and are therefore in Antarctica for research reasons. Antarctica is NOT their home [3]. Note that the temperatures in Antarctica have reached extremes such as -89.2 degrees Celsius [4]. Is it possible to provide a suitable insulation for such extremes?

If we speculate that is it possible to actually LIVE in Antarctica and treat it as home and every other place on earth currently uninhabitable, how many more people can the earth support? The UN predicts the earth will be able to support approximately 9 billion people by 2300 [5]. It also mentioned that some optimists argue that the earth is capable of supporting 1000 billion people, but this is simply absurd. Just to make it clear to you, that means a simple family of four right now would actually become a family of 62 members within every household.

You may argue that the world is growing larger every day [6]. This is true, but, the world is not growing fast enough to support our future population. The site states that earth was 40% smaller than it was 200 million years ago. The year 2300 is only just less than 3 centuries away from us.

You mentioned that China's population growth rate and some of the factors such as immigration. China also has many travellers and people who may migrate to other countries when necessary.

HARDER JOB OPPORTUNITIES

You said that there is no limit on social networking jobs. In theory, this would be a legitimate statement. But, thinking about it logically, are you saying that there could be up to 50 billion different social networking jobs?

Talking about your query about the cancer treatment, you did not mention that it would add the number of people looking for a job. Cancer treatment and the prospects of an anti-aging drug is also different. The drug (from my definition) is doubling our current life span. That means double the work time which then leads to double the number of people working.

While we may speculate that only the rich will be able to afford the drug, it will still create big disadvantages for those who are working and searching for a job right now.

ECONOMIC DIVIDE

I understand that Africa has a high population because of its poor conditions which lead to early deaths, but again, I think it is too difficult to help out 984 million people at one time. Also talking about Africa, anti-aging drugs would not help the people in Africa if their current conditions continue; some major ones include famine, poor governments, corrupt government officials, low availability of fresh water, low level of education and AIDS [7].

How will anti-aging drugs benefit people living in Africa if they have that kind of living conditions?

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Although the government has been switching to renewable along with research and advancements in carbon capture, pollution still affects over a billion people around the world [8] and has also poisoned millions of people and killed every year.

Referring to your words on things that are biodegradable, there are also non-biodegradable wastes such as plastic which usually end up in landfill and incineration [9] which will therefore be a negative environmental factor.

CONCLUSION

This comes to the end of my argument and I apologise for not providing decent sources and reasons for my opinions. Thank you for advising me not take use Wikipedia and WikiAnswers as sources. I will remember this from now on.

I have provided reasons for why anti-aging drugs would cause slower maturity and also some of my points on the economic divide about Africa. Also, I would like to note that if the country subsidies it, this could encourage higher crime rates as people may try to steal the drug (similarly to weed, or marijuana as it's known by its proper name) to use or sell.
CrazyTool

Con

You have made citation points but forgotten to put references in, so I'm not sure what you are referring to, either way, thank you.

1.New laws
2.Overpopulation
3.Harder job opportunities
4.Economic divide
5.Environmental factors
6.Conclusions
7.References

NEW LAWS

References are needed because you are making an assumption that it slows down the rate you mature as a person, rather than what this would do which would be to keep cells younger, had you seen the reference I posted in my previous argument, it stated "Instead of growing quickly and showing signs of ageing, the organisms became resilient to damage and were better able to repair the genetic defects that build up with age."[1] At no point did it say that maturity was lost, but this is irrelevant anyway because again, why would this drug be used on children? A drug as drastic as this would have guidelines for use, there might be cases where it's broken but those would be minimal and there would be contingency plans in place.

Those who are 1 or 2 years away would be unaffected, again, anyone below a certain age would most likely not be allowed access to such a drug, so there would be no inconvenience for a start and if they could prove they were going to take their test, then exceptions can be made, but it's irrelevant.

OVERPOPULATION

You're right in saying no one lives there as a home, but they can live there for a while, as it is at the moment though, it is used for research and operates like an oil-rig or military base though there is nothing to suggest that it can't be used as a place of residence. As for temperatures, people who work out there most likely use a layered method of insulation [2] and this is what will be done if anyone lived there and in summer, sun cream is needed on exposed parts [3] but these can all be dealt with and with time, technology advances.

The Earth can possibly support 9 billion people, what's also worth mentioning is that the UN states that the median age will be about 50 by 2300, from 26 [4] when the statement was made, this is a natural rise in human lifespan, which doesn't show a drastic increase, it's also a long time away so things can change and anti-ageing drugs may well just speed up the process, triggering a cultural shift.

In many countries, there are properties that are left empty, which could be used as housing but aren't always available for social housing as councils have to ask for unused homes to be rented out [5], so the problem isn't housing or space in some countries, overpopulation is an issue on a national scale for some countries but not an international issue.

HARDER JOB OPPORTUNITIES

50 billion social networking jobs would be making an assumption that the population is far greater than it is at the moment, in fact more so than the levels the UN report suggested of 9 billion. If we say 500 companies want a social networking presence and hire 5 people each to do this, so that would be 2,500 jobs and if we make an assumption that because these aren't full time jobs and work at home and 1/3 of those are overlapping, that is still about 1,667 unique jobs, more companies mean more jobs as well.

But cancer treatment still has an effect on the number of people who can look for a job; also as mentioned in my previous argument, anti-aging would reduce age related cases of cancer as well, so if it was already in circulation, this point would be irrelevant, but as it stands, cancer treatments see people living where they wouldn't otherwise.

ECONOMIC DIVIDE

You couldn't help everyone in any country anyway, it's just not logistically possibly, as much as many people would like to. Regardless of this, one of the problems you mentioned was AIDS but this is already on the decrease [6], other problems may also be changing. What anti-aging drugs could do however is force a cultural shift away from large families.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

The greater the shift, the less of the impact and as we progress, the shift will become greater so it will mean that it will eventually balance out in the future. As for plastics, some are biodegradable now however there are problems with these and they aren't perfect but the idea is there and it now means that it can be refined.

CONCLUSION

For maturity, you gave speculation and a definition, nothing to back up your claims. As for it being sold as a street drug, that is a possibility but not on the same scale as drugs like marijuana because it would be harder to access if it was only administered at a clinic and I believe it would be hard to recreate.

As for the final round of this debate, I would suggest closing statements rather than new arguments but I will follow you lead.

REFERENCES

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[2] http://www.coolantarctica.com...
[3] http://www.coolantarctica.com...
[4] http://www.un.org...
[5] http://www.thisistamworth.co.uk...
[6] http://www.un.org...
Debate Round No. 4
famer

Pro

I apologise once again for not putting in my references. The references for round 4 are now in the comments section of this debate.

1.New laws
2.Overpopulation
3.Harder job opportunities
4.Economic divide
5.Environmental factors
6.Conclusions
7.References

NEW LAWS

As I was trying to say earlier, maturing is simply a part of growing and that growing is part of the aging process. My definition of anti-aging drugs was "A drug that will slow down the aging process, therefore increasing our life expectancy to about 150". By slowing down the aging process, we are slowing our growth, which, in the end, will also slow down our maturing process.

I have read in your previous argument that "Instead of growing quickly and showing signs of ageing, the organisms became resilient to damage and were better able to repair the genetic defects that build up with age". This however, is only a theory on how this drug would operate as my definition did not suggest on how it would work.

You have also mentioned "A drug as drastic as this would have guidelines for use". This reminds me of the point I have raised in our second argument on the bodily consequences of using such a powerful drug. This argument still stand clear and untouched so I there's not much left to say about that.

I believe you have misunderstood me with what I was trying to say in the fourth argument. I as saying that inconvenience would be brought to those who WILL be learning how to drive (say the minimal age for driving is 16 and you are 15 and plan to learn after your next birthday). Inconvenience would be brought to those types of people who are affected by the new law.

OVERPOPULATION

While searching for information about whether Antarctica can possibly become habitable in the future, I found out that it is possible that Antarctica may be the ONLY habitable continent within the next [1] century. I have failed to find sources that state whether Antarctica will be habitable in the future if we lessen our pollution or keep it stable.
For insulation, I have had a look at the average temperature from the supplied data in my second source [2] and the overall mean of the temperatures is only -17 Degrees Celsius. Sometimes the temperature hit the extremes (such as the -89.2 Degrees Celsius), will those insulated clothing be enough to keep us alive before we reach home?

For properties that are left empty which could later be used as a home for other, this is only a very small minority of those houses that can be habitable. As your source clearly states, Tamworth has brought 46 empty houses during the time of 8 months.
HARDER JOB OPPORTUNITIES

Referring back to the jobs, it is true that new jobs will appear as our world progresses, but as new jobs appear, older jobs will disappear as well [3]. Some obvious examples are executioners during the medieval periods and now magazine journalism (as stated in my 3rd source). So either way, new jobs comes along while older jobs disappear and in the end, the number of jobs remains rather stable while the human population rises.

We should also note that some jobs require skills that certain skills before acceptance (the most common ones include general practitioners, lawyers, accountants etc. Uni courses for example). The imbalance between poor and rich will give the poorer nations harder job opportunities because of their lack of education and skills.

ECONOMIC DIVIDE

It is true that we cannot help everyone in any country, but we should still try to help out those in need. With AIDS, as your source even states [4], although AIDS in declining in Africa, it is still a BIG problem for the continent ("But new data show that epidemic remains huge in Africa"). But, in the bigger picture, AIDS in only a small picture compared with all the other factors that were involved with the low life expectancy in Africa (those being famine, poor governments, corrupt government officials, low level of education, low availability of clean water).

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Although we are shifting towards biodegradable wastes, earth's atmosphere is already dangerously polluted with gases that we humans have released to the atmosphere. As for some plastics being biodegradable, the keyword here is "some". There are still other plastics that are not biodegradable and therefore burnt to eliminate those wastes.

CONCLUSION

Here comes to the end of our debate. I have raised points such as inconveniencing our world with new laws, overpopulation, and the aspects of harder job opportunities. I also raised points about economic divide and some environmental factors involved with the use of anti-aging drugs.

I would also like to point out that while I have raised my arguments on why anti-aging drugs would not be beneficial to society, my opponent has merely refuted all my arguments but has not raised her own arguments!

I hope that I have convinced the readers that anti-aging drugs will NOT be beneficial to our developing society.
Vote Pro! ^.^

REFERENCES

1.http://www.rense.com...
2.http://www.coolantarctica.com...
3.http://www.fox8.com...
4.http://www.un.org...
CrazyTool

Con

1.New laws
2.Overpopulation
3.Harder job opportunities
4.Economic divide
5.Environmental factors
6.Conclusions
7.References

NEW LAWS

I understand what your definition is, but as I have stated twice already and with references, what anti-aging research has shown is that it keeps cells younger and aids regeneration which gives the impression of youth. This will indeed mean that you live longer but it doesn't mean that maturity is halted, which is why I asked you twice to support your claims.

While you may wish to dismiss my argument which I referenced to some sources as "only a theory" it does have more support and backing that the way you have presented it, as evidenced by the lack of sources you have cited with regards to maturity.

As for inconvenience, it happens all the time in law, it wouldn't really matter, yeah you'd have some kids disappointed but such is life. In 2007, the PPR suggested that the UK drinking age should be increased to 21 [1], this would have been seen as an inconvenience to those who wanted to legally drink.

OVERPOPULATION

I must question your reference on Antarctica being the only habitable country by 2100, the original article from the Independent has been removed, most likely because of misquoting and misrepresentation, [2] so I have nothing further to say to this.

As for temperatures, yes, the insulation would be enough, if you consider that a city has a lot of buildings and if those buildings are heated, then the streets would be warmer so extremes might not be as extreme. Regardless of this, I believe that insulation would be enough and we have developed the fabrics to cope with them.
Tamworth is but one example and 46 houses, if you have families of 4 is housing for 184 people, it's not much when you compare to billions, sure, but there are bigger cities with empty lots and land, I don't need to list them all, the space is there.

HARDER JOB OPPORTUNITIES

Executioners are still around in countries that have the death penalty and in countries where it's rare, this will have to advertise for it [3] so that's not a dead profession, nor is magazine journalism, that job can evolve into online magazine journalism, there's no reason why it can't.

You stated that the poor will find it harder than the rich to get jobs because of lack of education and skills, this is a political issue, not really related to age but there are countries that support students with grants to go to college and university, so there is no reason why they can't come out with the same qualification.

ECONOMIC DIVIDE

Education is on the rise in Africa as well [4] and wells are being built by charities across the world for fresh water; these things are becoming less of a problem. But poor living conditions do lead to lower life expectancies, which anti-aging drugs can assist with. Longer lives mean that a cultural shift will happen to get away from large families, as has been previously stated.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

It is rare for plastics to be burned now, as they give off toxic chemicals to both the environment and to animals, they are still deposited in landfills however and this does still release toxins. But more to the point, more and more people are doing something about it, 13.9 million people in the UK participate in recycling collections [5] which will probably keep increasing, so it will become less of an issue.

CONCLUSION

You raised a lot of points, most of which was pure speculation with no facts provided on issues such as how it would be harmful and ridiculous statements such as a child putting on a fake moustache to get the drug.
I raised a number of points as to why it would be beneficial, such as these four, some of which largely went unnoticed by my opponent.

1: Giving couples longer to think about the important decision of having a child.
2: Allowing companies to keep on aging staff to train up younger staff.
3: Speed up cultural change in Africa away from large families.
4: Reduced cancer risk.

Inconveniencing the world with new laws is a huge leap, it would only affect a few generations of teenagers, this argument is very wishy-washy, as I have stated, there have been other laws that youths may have felt inconvenienced by, so this would be no different.

Overpopulation was answered and some points ignored as well as the usage of a poorly research reference which cites something out of context and the original for it has since been removed. If the Earth can support 9 billion people by 2300 as claimed in this debate, we may have come a long way in terms of population distribution; it's too far ahead to make any real claim on if the Earth will be overpopulated.

Jobs will evolve, this much I have stated, with the rise of social networking and other forms of internet activities, there are plenty of what may become unskilled jobs to come out. These drugs are also not going to cause any shift in economic divide nor will they cause any greater harm to the environment, I am positive this much has been made clear.

I believe my opponent has failed to show why this form of drug would be a bad idea and as such, I would ask you to vote CON, thank you to those reading and to my opponent, I hope everyone involved enjoyed this debate.

REFERENCES

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[2] http://www.daverado.mvps.org...
[3] http://www.metro.co.uk...
[4] http://www.universityworldnews.com...
[5] http://www.recoup.org...
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Logic_on_rails 2 years ago
Logic_on_rails
I can't officially vote, so I'm leaving my RFD (Reason for Voting decision) in the comments along with my vote.

Conduct: Tied. Pro was putting sources in the comments, but it was his first debate, so I'm letting it slide.
Spelling and Grammar: Tied
Sources: Tied. Pro improved enough during the debate to tie this category.

Arguments: Pro

The main point here is BOP issues and definitions. Con inherently accepted Pro's definition, so that went for Pro (negating various Con arguments) . The other key point is that Con had to argue for a net benefit, not just an equal situation (ie. rebut all of Pro's points) . While Con did raise a few benefits, it didn't outweigh what Pro raised as negatives in the debate, so I award this to Con.

Both sides probably want to work on clarity in their presentation and link back to the resolution. As an aside, I personally support the Con position, but I voted on what was presented in the debate. Finally, both debaters should focus on key issues, not sidepoints: ie. An issue raised was overpopulation which then devolved into a question of habitability. Nobody ever questioned what an appropriate population was or raised issues about whether habitable land should become inhabited.

A decent debate overall.
Posted by famer 2 years ago
famer
CrazyTool, with your question on my first reference for the 5th round, the reference works fine for me. Here's the link again if you're interested:
http://www.rense.com...
Posted by famer 2 years ago
famer
I apologise for not putting my references for round 4. I'm not sure what happened. I probably forgot to paste them there. Well, here they are for round 4:

1.http://dictionary.reference.com...
2.http://thesaurus.com...
3.http://www.antarctica.gov.au...
4.http://www.universetoday.com...
5.http://www.guardian.co.uk...
6.http://www.expanding-earth.org...
7.http://econsguide.blogspot.com...
8.http://www.worstpolluted.org...
9.http://www.smallsimplelife.com...
Posted by famer 2 years ago
famer
Sorry CrazyTool if i sounded a bit rude or something. I was in a rush to finish it before i ran out of time. And Happy New Years Day to you CrazyTool along with all of our readers.
Posted by CrazyTool 2 years ago
CrazyTool
Hello
Posted by nananah 2 years ago
nananah
hey :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 2 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
famerCrazyToolTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not provide any of his own arguments, only refuting pro's arguments. Even with that, Pro responded well and defended his arguments = arguments to pro.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 2 years ago
THEBOMB
famerCrazyToolTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not fulfill their BOP they had to prove the benefits of such a drug. They spent their entire time refuting Pros arguments.