The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points

People should not live forever

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,457 times Debate No: 31954
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Everyone want to prolong their life. So, what it would be if people could live forever?
The first round is not for argument, just saying your idea about this.
Good luck for the next round.


This debate will probably be pretty interesting. I accept.

Note: Is the premise that everybody would be immortal, or simply myself?
Debate Round No. 1


The premise is: it is possible for everyone to live forever.
Let's me explain it clearer. That means people would not die because of aging-associated diseases. Only active intervention would cause to death. And if there are no active intervention like accident (implying no unreasonable voluntary risk), misadventure (accident following a willful and dangerous risk), suicide, or homicide..., people could be immortal.

But in my opinion, even if we could, we should not live forever.
The main reason is we've been already facing the consequences of overpopulation. The number in the population have been exceeding the natural resources available to sustain it. If natural causes could not lead to death, that means a great decline in mortality rates that leads to a faster population growth rate. The consequences of such an event will be much more severe and major.


==Interpretation of Immortality==
What my opponent has basically told us is that immortality is the ability to live as long as you are not killed, continue to eat, continue to sleep, continue to etc. The only real difference between normal life and immortality would be a prolonged life span, as we all can acknowledge that resources are limited and accidents will eventually happen over time.
However, immortal is defined as "exempt from death" [1]. In pro's scenario, we are far from exempt from death.
My counter-intrepretation of the topic would be that all humans would become death-less and under no circumstance die.

==Advantages of Immortality==
The first and most obvious benefit would be on the emotional scale. No longer would we have to witness tragic events where a son could lose their dad, or best friends losing one another. The neverending length of our lives would simply give us more time to enjoy the company of more people. There are around 7 billion people on Earth, compared to our little social circles of maybe hundreds.

The second impact would be economic. People would no longer have to cultivate food or keep animals, meaning more switches to technology development. On the other hand, people will no longer have to pay for medical costs, reducing fees. One might say that they would lose their jobs, but making the switch to another industry would be rather easy. Furthermore, in the face of immortality, their jobs become minisculely immportant to them as time passes by, and it is a small price to pay for the millions of lives saved.

Another idea would be that perhaps the human race would evolve into something unlike other races. We would no longer have to live for survival and fight for necessities like food, but rather we would exist for our own enjoyment. Unbound by Earthly desires, mainly because they will no longer have any effect on your life, we could achieve to become something else.

==My Opponent's Arguments==
The Pro brings up the argument of overpopulation and the necessary resources. On the other hand, we cannot give up lives on the basis that "we do not have enough to share with them". That is an unethical choice, to choose to end the lives of others simply because you do not want the trouble of sharing the resources.
Looking through the eyes of my interpretation, this problem of resources would never occur. And overpopulation will also bring more innovation and new technological developments would be able to accompany rapid population growth. Perhaps the colonization of Mars, better use of land (not to mention that we would have the farm land that we would no longer need), or improved designs of buildings. Another answer would be birth control.

Thank you, and I now turn the debate over to the Pro.

Debate Round No. 2


Resource depletion and environmental pollution
Resource depletion and environmental pollution is now a serious worldwide problem. We are struggling to deal with the consequences of it and have not found out an effective measure. When humans become immortal, the population will skyrocket and the crisis will become more serious. All of the resources essential for human life, the foundation for economic growth is exhausted with the fast pace. Most of them are non-renewable: petroleum, natural gas, metals, phosphorus... water, soil and even fresh air is also exhausted. Along with the reduced supply and increased demand due to population growth, the prices of these resources will also increase. More and more people will have difficulty in land ownership, access to clean water and food. Poverty, not health care, poor living conditions will give rise to instability and violence in society. War is very likely going to happen to gain control of essential resources. Indeed, in the past, the underlying cause of most wars are appropriated from the desire for resources such as land, rich mines and markets. Depletion of natural resources also makes economic crisis when there is not enough raw materials to produce products. Even if we would invent a ship can take us to a place similar to earth life, we would not have enough metal, materials, food, water, fuel to include all people living on Earth to a new planet.

Environmental Pollution
Besides the lack of resources, the environmental pollution is a serious problem. The amount of garbage we throw out every day are becoming a lot more. Handling the problem is very difficult. Untreated waste are poisoning water, the atmosphere and soil. It also led to a decline in numbers of many species of wild animals (birds, fish, and mammals ...) of their habitat is destroyed and poisoned by waste. The animals mistakenly eat plastic bags and die because of not digesting are becoming popular. With its huge population when humans become immortal, even the breath of fresh air also becomes a luxury dream for many people.

The burden of an aging population
People could be immortal, but this does not mean that people will inevitably be older. Most people retire at age 55 or 60. Now that they are no longer a source of social labor anymore. Thus, even if one's life time is not limited, the labor time in every person's life is limited to age 60. The age of 85, people will lose teeth, memory decline, even walking and remembering their name became a difficult task for most people. When getting older, people can do nothing but sitting in a wheelchair in the nursing home. If life is more than 150 years old, people will not even have enough health and sanity to be called alive, they simply exist. Longevity just means prolonging the life when they are old and no longer able to work. Health care costs, social security will become a financial burden for any government when their populations grow old. In fact, the issue of an aging population is an issue that governments such as Japan and some European countries are concerned. The argument of the Con is not logic as telling us that the aging population will stimulate economic development. The solution that the Con gave - birth control even made the situation a lot worse when it makes the number of people born dwindling while the number of elderly people is increasing. Percentage of working age will become smaller and smaller and a small number of working people will have to bear a huge burden financially and economically for large numbers of older people in society.

Technological advances will not keep up with the population boom.
The Con have argued that the issue of resources will never happen, while it is a serious problem for any country. The technology achievements are still happening, but since the booming industry with thousands of inventions, the technological progress has not been caught up and solve the problems of the population boom. As analyzed above, the labor age will remain unchanged even when prolong human life. So there will not be any surge of scientific progress as the Con image. With a population growth rate of more shocking when people become immortal, it would be naive to think that the progress of science will solve everything while in the current conditions, with the current rate of population growth, it's still a our greatest problem. Thinking that we will suddenly invent something resolved all issues is only happen in sci-fi movies.


Resource depletion and environmental pollution
Throughout my opponent's argument, he forgets that we will see a technological outbreak like no other. From the fact that most industries will no longer be necessary, there will be an influx of willing workers who will help out on developmental projects. The best apparent solution to the Pro's given problem of exhausting resources and living space, is to colonize Mars. Mars is actually surprisingly similar to Earth. The total surface area on Mars is about the same as the total landmass on Earth (although Mars does have a smaller radius). Time on Mars passes just like on Earth - a Martian day is about 24 hours and 40 minutes. The axial tilt is also similar, meaning that Mars has seasons like Earth. There also exists water ice on the surface.
This brings us to the probability of terraforming Mars.
I quote
“In this paper we propose a mathematical model of the Martian CO2 system, and use it to produce analysis which clarifies the potential of positive feedback to accelerate planetary engineering efforts...We examine the potential of various schemes for producing the initial warming to drive the process, including the stationing of orbiting mirrors, the importation of natural volatiles with high greenhouse capacity from the outer solar system, and the production of artificial halocarbon greenhouse gases...It is concluded that a drastic modification of Martian conditions can be achieved using 21st century technology... Humans operating on the surface of such a Mars would require breathing gear, but pressure suits would be unnecessary. With outside atmospheric pressures raised, it will be possible to create large dwelling areas by means of very large inflatable structures. Average temperatures could be above the freezing point of water for significant regions during portions of the year, enabling the growth of plant life in the open. The spread of plants could produce enough oxygen to make Mars habitable for animals in several millennia. More rapid oxygenation would require engineering efforts supported by multi-terrawatt power sources. It is speculated that the desire to speed the terraforming of Mars will be a driver for developing such technologies, which in turn will define a leap in human power over nature as dramatic as that which accompanied the creation of post-Renaissance industrial civilization. [1]
In a matter of years, the human race could colonize Mars without immortality. Industrialization is an example of our ability to adapt. Furthermore, if we were to become indifferent to harsh conditions such as heat, cold, radiation, etc, then we could very much live anywhere. The concept of ‘living space’ would become obsolete - as we wouldn’t have any more ‘necessities to survive’.
Resource depletion and environmental pollution are all products of human necessity. If we were immortal, would there be any real reason to become greedy anymore? Nothing would be necessary. Not to mention, immortality would give a longer period of time for rehabilitation and teaching, so we could educate even those who would normally go unnoticed or oppressed. All crimes root from a person desire to live, although sometimes it might be from mental illness. The only possible problem with rehabilitation is that some people might not be able to change, but on the bright side, murders would become impossible.

Aging Population
My opponent makes the argument that people will 'retire' and still age. The mere meaning of eternal life is anti-aging. If people were to start losing functionality at the age of 85, that would imply that their bodies weren't built for immortality and mean that they are still fragile, which is contrary to my interpretation of immortality. Besides, replacing body parts with bionic parts is already existent, and in a few decades, technology will rapidly change.
Therefore, birth control is a legitimate solution for a while.

Technological Advances
If scientists achieve immortality, that would spark a great interest in that field. We can expect more scientists who want to benefit humanity. My opponent never 'analyzed' why the labor age will stay the same or why people will continue to age at a rapid rate. Pro simply asserted them as facts.
It seems more logical that governments will adjust to the fact that everybody becomes immortal. In fact, there may no longer be governments, since they will no longer have any military power over the average human.
A bigger population also means more people who want to study in the field of science. Naturally, as populations grow, the popular field of work becomes more saturated. With immortality, the field of science would be overflowing, because it would easily become the most popular choice.
There would also be a multitude of those in the medical profession who might switch over to bionic, biological study, etc.
My opponent also hasn't responded to the fact that he is fine with people dying simply because he doesn't want to share the resources with them. Overpopulation is fine, if it means we are saving lives.

Debate Round No. 3


thangbe forfeited this round.


Extend. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by thangbe 3 years ago
Pretty sad that I've just miss the deadline for posting the argument.
Posted by jeunine 3 years ago
I agree. People spend way to much time focusing on their futures then spendjng time in the present.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Kenneth_Stokes 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments and a forfeit.